That is not the bottom line and this isn't about more knowledge... I don't know of anyone who disagrees with the jury, they came to the conclusion that had to come to according to how the case played out. That's why the jury cried. For him to live out his life and continue as an ordinary citizen might be fair, but none of this is fair and life isn't fair, ask Martin's parents if life is fair. It isn't.The bottom line is if you are going to disagree with the jury, then you have to have more knowledge about the situation than they do and I don't, so that's my rationale. I believe for the system to be fair once a person is acquitted, then he should be able to continue life as an ordinary citizen, unless someone with more knowledge brings it forth as more evidence. Even that is a little shaky!