- Reaction score
Like it or not the accused do have the right to a fair trial and if convicted they should be convicted on evidence and proof that leaves no doubt not because of 20 years of monetary waste, a new building and bungled investigation.
I agree that a fair trial should be granted to everyone convicted under the law. But they have spent an awful lot of my money on this one case. My money. Your money, all of our money....and for what? To find that certain evidence was not gathered properly? And therefore is not admissible in court?
Would justice be more served if the evidence was allowed resulting in a conviction? As opposed to the justice being less served, and not allowing the evidence, releasing back into society, 2 individuals responsible for the deaths of over 300 people.
(Addition after rereading my post) A point on that last statement, justice would be less served if the police were not allowed to stop your car and ask if you have been drinking, which in the past some have viewed as a violation of section 9 of the Charter of rights, The right not to be arbitrarily detained or imprisoned. But the courts ruled that justice is more served to have people stopped, or in some cases detained while you are asked if you have been drinking, to quell the evil of drunk driving. It's just a comparison to say how the courts respond to an act, or a ruling, or a violation of ones rights to see how justice is better served. By no way am I making an argument that the admission or in admission of evidence is the same as being stopped in your car. It is just an example of why the courts determine how justice is better served.
I guess if a public enquiry is held, we will find out just how the evidence was collected, how truly credible or non-credible the witnesses were. More money, more time, less justice, more pain. And adding insult to injury for the remaining family members.