Inquest ruling

Your headline saying that barrister Mark Saunders was "lawfully killed" (8 October) seems disingenuous as it appears that there was no other option. The inquest jury, after sitting though the evidence, was told by the Westminster coroner, Dr Paul Knapman, that a verdict of unlawful killing was not available to them. His reasons for doing so were not explained in your article. Did he explain himself in court? This action raises the question: what is the point of having a jury? Or indeed an inquest? Nick Follows London