[CaptainCrunch]

It seems to me that the focus of the media and even our Prime Minister isn't about the application of justice, but the application of vengeance.

Why did the jury find him not guilty? Was it the interpretation of reasonable doubt? If it was, then the court functioned exactly the way that it should have. Or is there now an expectation that having a jury made up of people that would look at the death of Bushie and be able to ignore reasonable doubt in the pursuit of vengence?

The Crown is fully free to appeal, and there is no doubt that there will be pressure put on the prosecutor by the Justice Minister and even by the words of native leaders and our Prime Minister. But what is the likely hood of a fair trial on appeal now? I'd say that its very small.

I get the anger over Bushie's death, and I also think that people understand that this wasn't about what Bushie was doing at the time that was on trial, but the action of a farmer, with un-reliable witnesses that changed their story. With the RCMP experts not being able to prove what happened beyond a reasonable doubt the right verdict was reached here, and an appeal unless there's a solid reason besides, we couldn't load the jury with people that could convict with reasonable doubt shouldn't happen.

We can't appeal just to appeal, we can't appeal just to placate the Prime Minister, the Justice Minister or the family of Bushie and the Native leadership.