Canadian Army captain Robert Semrau has been acquitted of murdering a mortally wounded insurgent in Afghanistan.
With the gaping holes in the evidence against the officer it was hard to concieve how anyone could claim the prosecution had proved every element of the offence. Eyewitness evidence was contradictory and inconsistent. No one actually saw Semrau shoot the man. There was no proof the mortally wounded man was even alive when the shots were heard. There was no medical evidence as to actual cause of death.
To convict Semrau the court itself would have had to supply the necessary evidence and that would have had to take the form of conjecture and assumptions. The panel of officers did, however, make those very assumptions in finding Semrau guilty of a lesser charge of "behaving in a disgraceful manner" based on shooting an unarmed captive. I think they got that one wrong but, then again, they're officers not trained judges.