The sarcasm was the problem Fiolar. I would have agreed with all your first post if parts of it had not been intended sarcastically. Your last post I agree with entirely, for although I am glad those brothers were acquitted (and believe they were innocent, or at least innocent of the Damilola charges) I do accept that witnesses need to have some kind of assurance that they will be treated decently - otherwise even fewer will come forward.

Incidentally, those who favour capital punishment in the belief that guilt can sometimes be proved beyond all doubt may care to reflect that if the Hanratty verdict is overturned, it will be overturned in the face of forensic evidence (DNA samples) that would seem to prove his guilt.

My own experience of the law is that where a defendant pleads not guilty, it is nearly impossible to prove otherwise. Where guilt continues to be denied for years afterwards, that person is invariably is innocent. Most of us, me included, are too predisposed to assume that all crimes are solvable. Many crimes are not, and no-one has failed when the guilty go undetected in such cases.