Before people scratch their heads, I'm just posting this as a side issue. Here in Australia we have the same sort of Double Jeopardy rules as my friends across the pond here have, as well as UKGuy does. These apparently date back to the year 350 or so whereby they were created so that people on trial couldn't be continuously tried for the same crime until the verdict was what the Government, or whoever, wanted. So a reasonably good law. Our version comes from the UK law which dates back some 800 years or so. Anyway, about 23 years ago, two policemen were killed in Melbourne, Victoria (where I live) in the middle of a suburban street during the day (unheard of in safe and happy Oz) and the people who committed the crimes were some of the biggest thugs and criminals known to authorities. Long story short, they managed to escape justice due by nobbling of witnesses etc and got away with it. Now our State Government is about to overturn this Double Jeopardy law, but only in cases where DNA or overwhelming evidence or confessions, are part of the new and extenuating circumstances surrounding a case. Now I'm big on justice being done and being seen to be done, and everyone KNEW these guys did it....so much so that the Police over the years have managed to arrest/shoot/etc pretty much all of the people involved in relation to other crimes. But I am uncertain as to the consequences should this pass... I worry that the fundamental reason for implementing this law is possibly being eroded to a concerning level whereby the Govt or some other body may be able to, in effect, try someone until they get the perceived right result. I know, evidence is evidence and it should tell the story (and here's my tenuous JBR link), but we see how wacky and possibly contradictory evidence can result in non-results and endless speculation as to what is the correct end result in a 'justice being done' sense. Anyway, I just thought I'd share with you some of the goings on from sunny Down Under...where it isn't actually sunny.