IF it marks the conclusion of the case, the decision of Crown Court judge Peter Openshaw to throw out the proceedings against two people charged with the brutal murder nearly 11 years ago of 70-year-old Blackburn pensioner Leslie Jackson -- more than four months after the charge against a third person was dropped -- then it is a most unsatisfactory ending.

Though not delivered by a jury that had weighed the evidence and arguments of the prosecution and defence, it may well be that this result upholds the claims to innocence that all three have maintained throughout.

But it is disturbing that so long after Mr Jackson was savagely beaten to death that guilt and punishment for his murder remains unexacted -- and may never be, as the police say they are not actively seeking anyone else for the killing though the investigation remains open.

This follows the judge's ruling that the case could not go ahead as no new evidence had come to light and because of the delay in bringing a prosecution -- one of 10 years -- there would be a risk of prejudice to the trial. But, as a result, several questions are left hanging in the air.

Apart from the major one of just who did kill Mr Jackson, of prime concern is why was a prosecution not brought 10 years ago if, as the judge determined, the evidence was the same then as now.

In view of the protracted strain imposed on those who were eventually charged, the cost of the wasted effort and Mr Jackson's murder remaining unsolved and unpunished, should not the police and the prosecution authorities explain why this delay -- crucial as it was to this unsatisfactory upshot -- came about?

Certainly, all who believe in the fullness of justice will hope that this outcome is not the end of the matter and that a satisfactory conclusion may yet be delivered -- no matter how long it takes.