The editorial "Difficult verdict: Justice not always as it seems" (Our View, Aug. 21) is off target.

In explaining the acquittal of Roberto Miramontes Román on the charge of killing Millard County Deputy Sheriff Josie Greathouse Fox, a member of the jury said that the jury could not rule out "the possibility" that Román's testimony that recanted his earlier confession could be true. Good grief, any number of things could be "possible."

Reasonable doubt is the standard the jury was to have used, not the "possibility" of some other account being true from a Johnny-come-lately story told for the first time by the defendant at the trial.

The judge could have and should have allowed written and recorded statements by the victim's now-deceased brother be used to rebut Román's new version of events. Those statements were critical evidence, given by a now unavailable witness. This kind of testimony has been allowed in criminal courts before.

The Tribune was wrong in calling out Utah Attorney General Mark Shurtleff for describing the end result of this sad, sad episode as a miscarriage of justice. That's exactly what it is.

Ed Phillips

Kanosh