"Can a trully neutral Jury be found?"
I very much doubt it and therein lies the rub, as they say. It is easy with the benefit of hindsight to criticise the way that some British soldiers behaved in Northern Ireland, but less easy to understand just how terrifying it must be to patrol streets where just around that next corner there might be a terrorist ambush, or a crowd of young men throwing petrol bombs.
That is exactly the kind of fear that young men in uniform were facing every day and night back then, and most people would acknowledge the fact that in such fraught circumstances errors of judgement must have occurred on many occasions. In the context of The troubles (as they are called) decisions might have been made in seconds, and the consequent errors of action could result in someone's death - no time to consider the finer points of rules of engagement when you see, or think you see a man about to shoot you. Is he a Terrorist with a gun, or an innocent civilian? There must surely have been many cases of shoot first, ask questions later.
There are people much better informed than me who will have their views, and I am certainly not excusing murder if it occurred. I'm simply making the point that long after the events in question, satisfying a jury beyond reasonable doubt of a defendant's guilt will be a challenging task.
There's an argument that says if we want men and women to wear a uniform, carry a weapon and put their lives at risk in the service of their country, we must be prepared to support them in what they do, as long as they act according to law and the rules of engagement. If we cannot offer them that assurance (so the argument goes) we are not entitled to expect anyone to volunteer for service in the first place.