"Gary" wrote in message
news:rP1_d.701509$8l.360449@pd7tw1no...
[...]
I don't want to see a kangaroo style court or a spanish inquisiton but
cumon!!!! after 20 years and $200 million I would have thought that this
would have been a open and shut case!

By definition, a case that takes 20 years and $200 million to try is NOT
"open and shut".

Furthermore, to insist that the length or cost of a trial should somehow
imply a guilty verdict at the end is just stupid. If the length or cost of
a trial was in any way an indicator of what the final judgment should be, we
could simply set a threshold for time and/or cost and say that any trial
that exceeds that threshold will automatically return a guilty verdict.

The cost in time and money for a trial reflects the complexity of the case,
the seriousness of the offense, and amount of evidence, and similar issues.
It's not a metric that's useful for determining guilt or innocence.

Basically, your entire premise is just plain dumb. Sorry, no offense
intended. It's just that you're not being rational.

By the way, it's a well-known established fact of most Western justice
systems (Canadas included) that not every guilty party is found guilty in
court. Even if the defendents in this case are guilty (and so far you've
failed to show you have any reason to believe they are), there is still the
possibility that they would *legitimately* be found not guilty. There are
good reasons for our justice systems being designed this way, and anyone who
expects a 100% conviction rate of guilty parties has simply set themselves
up for disappointment.

As far as the Mounties "we always get our man" claim, the Mounties don't try
the case, and that statement has nothing to do with whether a conviction
happens or not. It's not even a legally binding claim, but if it were, it
would apply only to the initial criminal investigations and arrests.

You're welcome to vent, but don't be surprised when people point out how
foolish your venting is.

Pete