Cui bono?

The Milly Dowler murder trial has led to much recrimination and soul-searching.  Once again, I have to say that I think we are asking the wrong question.  The question being asked is whether it is acceptable that the defence should be allowed to expose the skeletons in the Dowler family cupboard as part of their strategy.  And of course the answer is - yes they should.  An accused is entitled to his or her defence, and it is perfectly legitimate for the defence to put forward an alternative theory - to say to the jury "The prosecution are telling you it happened like this - we are saying, not necessarily, it could have happened like this" in an attempt to raise a "reasonable doubt" in the jury's mind.  No, the question which should be being asked is - why was there a trial?  Who decided to prosecute and why?  After all, the result - whichever way it went - would make no practical difference.  The accused was already in prison for life - that wasn't going to change.  If the prosecution was brought at the behest of, or even with the agreement of the Dowler family, then I'm afraid they must accept that to a greater or lesser extent they are the authors of their own misfortune.  If on the other hand, it was brought purely as a bureaucratic exercise - simply so that the police could stamp the file "closed" and put it away, then yes, I think that needs to be looked at.  But the fact is that once the decision to prosecute was made, everything else followed with a depressing inevitability.  Mr Dowler said his family had had to pay "too high a price" for the conviction.  Yes indeed - but who was it who decided to go for a conviction in the first place?