"Dave B" wrote in message
news:UMr_d.712770$6l.575085@pd7tw2no...
This IS your tax dollars at work too pal!!

I believe you missed the sarcasm in Tony's post.

Although I don't agree with everything this guy says and
the justice system is supposed to work for everyone,
something went terribly wrong

Perhaps I'm wrong, but this remark seems founded on a
belief that the verdict was erroneous. Unless you sat
through all the testimony and examined the evidence,
you would not have a basis for such a belief, except
perhaps the common misconception that 'if they're
charged, they musta done it!'.

In simple fact, the judge who did sit through the testimony
and did weigh the evidence did not agree that the Crown
made their case. The judge did not feel that the allegations
against the accused were supported by the testimony and
evidence. That's what he's there for. If there was not a
sufficient case, and the accused were not convicted, then
something went right here.

Though we'd all like to see that the perpetrators of this
crime are brought to justice, it does not follow from this
outcome that this will not come to pass, nor that anyone
will get off scott free. Perhaps more evidence will
be discovered or more advanced analysis techniques
to interpret the existing evidence, and the path will
lead onward to other people. Perhaps not.

It might also be that the perpetrators are never found
nor convicted. There might just be not enough evidence
to track down and convict anyone. If this is so, it also
does not follow that the investigation was bungled, as
some others have suggested; it might just be that there
is no evidence to be found. Crimes go un-solved
everyday - just because this crime involved the deaths
of so many people does not change that.

a couple of guys got away with murder!! There is no
disputing this!

Yes there is. This remark implies that because these
accused were not convicted that 'a couple of guys got
away with murder'. If no one is ever convicted of
this crime then someone will have 'got away with
murder' - but this does not necessarily follow
from this particular verdict.