"One observation that could generally be noted by anyone paying particular attention to the proceedings was the relationship that Mr. Unthank had with those in court. He was comfortable, appeared to know everybody, talked with the Police Prosecutor, and was on a first name basis with almost everyone including the Bench Clerk who is responsible for the administration of the court.
Even the Police Prosecutor, who had about twenty cases to deal with, appeared to be friends with Mr. Unthank. I would not be surprised if they met up for a few beers afterwards."
Well just from an objective standpoint, those statements really worry me. Whether you agree with the Witness side or not, you should still agree that it is ethically dangerous to be flirting with "court room cronyism" like that. I fear that they are likely to end up with another kangaroo court witch hunt like the Walsh trial if they are not careful...
As for the "they got accused therefore they have to step down" arguments, I think that those are rather exagerated. Witnesses get accused of all kinds of silly things all the time because of religious bias and persecution and such (the conscientious objectors in Armenia and other countries have been "accused" and often jailed, but does that mean that they should be disqualified from serving their congregations?).
Let Mr. Unthank actually prove his case first (since has the burden of proof), then you all can start calling for resignations =P