Imagine your child being abducted, assaulted and murdered. The perpetrator is caught by police and put on trial. But the trial takes place in secret and last four years. You inquire as to what has been learned or determined. You are told that no conclusions have been reached. You have to wait for the final verdict. On the matter of the appropriate penalty should the perpetrator be found guilty, all the killer's friends and relatives get to testify as character witnesses, but you are not allowed to speak. In the end, he is found guilty but given a suspended sentence and set free. You inquire as to the facts of what actually happened to your child. The judge responds that he will issue a report, but that it's contents will be confined to information that is in the public interest to prevent future child abduction. You learn that killer was set free because he bargained with the judge - he would tell all in return for a light sentence. The judge agreed citing the best interests of the public in the prevention of future crimes.

Now imagine 229 people killed ...