The thing is the authorities generally can't give their side of things in public as a matter of policy, especially seeing as it could potentially taint a trial by influancing public opinion. I've long felt that the press needs to be put under similar limitations when a trial is in progress.
I'll also say that in probably 90% or more of the cases where a guilty person is found innocent long after the fact it's the result of a technicality more than anything. The exceptions are very, very, rare. Basically someone who is successfully prosecuted and sits in jail for 10+ years has a good chance of getting off if he can find any bogus excuse to argue the case should be re-opened on a technicality. There are lawyers and private investigators who pretty much make a living trying to find ways of getting convicted people off after the fact. It can be very difficult for a prosecutor to re-build their entire case with all the things they are juggling, especially when it comes to witnesses (who might have died, moved on, or just not remember things all that well after a decade), evidence which needed to be stored and filed, or even finding the original investigators who might themselves be retired, dead, or otherwise not focused on the case anymore. Simply put a convicted person only has to focus on their one case, and professionals assisting them (or obsessive relatives or allies) can likewise show a lot more focus than the system can. In a system weighted heavily towards the defendant, all you need is one BS thing years after the fact. Likewise while the law can't be retroactively applied toward prosecuting someone, it CAN be retroactively applied to someone's defense and used to overturn previous rulings. Even in cases where DNA is brought up it can be more ambigious than you think when the prosecution is operating on notes many years old and doesn't have active investigators and such pursueing that case like when it was new to really address it and make counterpoints about how someone's DNA could have been in an odd place or whatever.
At any rate, as time goes on and the authorities become more aware of the issues, new cases are being investigated with an eye towards time proofing them and using the relevent technologies when the case is big enough (DNA testing and such is expensive, unlike on TV a police department can't just order tons of labwork at the drop of a hat, they don't have that kind of a budget). I doubt your going to see many more cases where some guy prosecuted during the 70s or 80s or whatever goes free during a re-trial.
That said, these guys are pretty much doomed. The nature of the court system being that we're unlikely to see much of the evidence in the public (nor should we, the OJ Simpson trial alone showed what a circus that turns into with a big case), but enough people have gone over this with enough differant political agendas where I don't think there is going to be a problem. Understand there are those (liberals, other muslims) who want to see this disproven for personal reasons, as well as there being international ramifications beyond that due to multiple citizenships with these guys apparently having lived and worked in Russia where they are at least partial citizens, an issue which has had Putin in dialogue with our own goverment and showing their eyes on the situation as well. Even if somehow these guys were ever found innocent of the bombing, they are still guilty of attacking the police, which is in of itself a crime that would put them away pretty much forever. Even if innocent, you do not attack the police, your supposed to cooperate while they question/investigate you, etc... running from the police is one thing and touchy, but when you attack them with explosives and firearms... well... being innocent of the charge the police were pursueing them for does not clear them from their attacks on the cops... and that isn't ambigious at all at this point.
