"Gary" wrote in message
news:rP1_d.701509$8l.360449@pd7tw1no...
That is entirely true and possible. However I have a feeling that justice
was not served and that the defence lawyers are paid much more money
than our crown prosecutors.

Yet you point out later that more than $200 million was spent on this.
How does *that* stack up against the money paid to the defence??

This was brought up in the news yesterday about the pay difference
between defence and prosectution lawyers and this outcome would
be possible!

This outcome is *supposed* to be possible, regardless of any alleged pay
difference between the lawyers involved, or the effort and expense of
the investigation and trial. If it's not a possible outcome, there's no
point
to the trial.

I really don't know much about what evidence was brought up in court
and the media was blocked out. I was angry and frustrated and had to vent!

This is a telling fact. Given that you "don't know much about what evidence
was brought up in court" your above noted 'feeling', and your 'anger
and frustation', with regard to these defendants at least, is misplaced.

The facts are that it has taken almost 20 years and $200 million to bring
this to trial These two accused have been under investigation for many
years
for the bombing. I remember reading about these two in the news many
years ago.

Given that it has taken "almost 20 years and $200 million to bring this to
trial"
and that "these two accused have been under investigation for many years"
and given all that, and we have the now further established fact that the
Crown was not able to adequately prove their case, it seems to me you
ought to take the attitude that a) the Crown mishandled the case, or b)
there
was just insufficient legitimate evidence to establish the accused as
guilty,
or c) the accused are in fact innocent.

Someone is responsible for bringing that plane down and killing all
the passangers and crew. As well as the two workers in Japan, and
if it is not these two then who????

The objective of the trial was to determine if it was or was not *these*
accused. "If not these two, then who" is not a question relevant to the
trial nor its outcome.

and how much more time and money is it going to take to find and jail
those responsible??

It sounds like you're more concerned about the cost than that justice
was or was not done? You sound like you're pleading to move from
a "presumption of Innocence until proved Guilty" approach, to a
"presumption of guilt until we can find someone else we can presume
guilty approach."

There used to be a saying "THE MOUNTIES ALWAY GET THIER
MAN" Any of you remember the cartoon Bullwinkle and Rocky?
Remember Constable Dudley Doright? Well that sums up our RCMP
I am starting to lose faith in not only our judicial system but in the
investigative practices of our police forces!

But here again I recall your earlier admission that you "don't know
much about what evidence was brought up in court". Hence I can
see no reason that this outcome should produce a lack of faith in
either the judicial system or the investigative practices of our police
forces.

The fact of a long, involved, expensive investigation, and twenty or
so years of trial by press, should in fact not produce a slam-dunk
verdict. The result *should* depend on the evidence put
forward, not upon how much it cost nor how long it took to develop
it.

If the Crown could not present a convincing case despite such long
and expensive preparation, the accused *should* be acquitted, and
we ourselves should hold them so.

I don't want to see a kangaroo style court or a spanish inquisiton but
cumon!!!!

Perhaps that's not what you want, but it sounds like that's exactly what
you're asking for.

after 20 years and $200 million I would have thought that this
would have been a open and shut case!

As above. The accused are entitled to a fair trial: To answer the
evidence and face their accusers. They did this. Perhaps the links
were too tenuous. Perhaps the Crown messed up. Perhaps the
Crown accused the wrong people. I don't know. But we know
that in the end they didn't prove their case. In the end, the accused
are established as Not Guilty of the charges brought against them.