Your messages seem to imply that it's obvious that they are guilty. It
might be prudent to wait a little to hear why they were found innocent.
If they didn't do it, then they shouldn't be convicted. I have no
knowledge about whether they did it or not, and I suspect you don't
either.

I'm a bit leary of the bloodthirstiness I read. It might be my
imagination, but it seems to me that I might interpret your message as
saying 'considering the time and money spent, they should have been
convicted because _somebody_ must pay, whether or not they did it.' If
I am in error, I apologize for the insinuation, but that's how I
interpreted it.