Paul McConville (The Herald, September 13) makes cogent points on the coverage of Lord Clarke's decision in the Angus Sinclair trial for the World's End killings, but, in reaching for an appropriate policy response, there needs to be analysis somewhat more extensive than: "That's just how things sometimes go."

The result, so far as this case is concerned, is that the judge's decision is final and I certainly would agree that there is a strong public interest (never mind the private interest of the accused) in there being finality around judicial decisions, particularly on the sufficiency of evidence.

But that need not necessarily mean that the only remedy should be an acquittal - the rights of the accused might be vindicated by remedies other than the dismissal of serious charges without any inquiry by a jury.

A crucial area of concern in the Sinclair case was the Crown's decision to concede it would not proceed with DNA evidence that was the subject of a defence objection. It is unconscionable that a case of this importance would not have had significant input from the law officers during its preparation and presentation. I suspect where Mr McConville and I might agree is that it is a distraction from the real questions of this case to "murmur" the judge.

It is possibly the case that another judge might have let the case go to the jury, but I have not yet heard anyone suggest convincingly that Lord Clarke got his decision wrong. It was not his decision that kept out the DNA evidence, and murmuring him does not answer the question of why evidence that initially was sought to be led was not even argued before him.

There are compelling questions demanding answers from both of Alex Salmond's appointees and serious questions which deserve a bit more consideration than the unseemly blame game that seems to have occurred in the Scottish Parliament today.

We all should be concerned that the moral authority of our legal system in the eyes of the public should not be undermined by the distortion of the protections of our criminal justice system. It is just a coincidence that the man accused of these offences is in custody for other serious offences but otherwise he would have walked free from court.

No-one should be content with that outcome.

It is neither a knee-jerk response to ask what might safely be done to avoid such outcomes, nor to argue that the courts must recognise the competing interests of the public and accused persons where a judicial ruling is made on a submission of no case to answer in criminal proceedings, not least a murder trial.

Brian Fitzpatrick, 24 Dalziel Drive, Glasgow.