The two New York cops Kenneth Moreno and Franklin Mata who allegedly raped a drunken woman got off with lighter crimes and were cleared of rape last week, but you'd think they were both O.J. Simpson.

Such was the outbreak of moral indignation that it was impossible to see the reality for the case as the jury saw it.

This was a conscientious jury that spent many days deliberating. Unlike in the O.J. case they came up with the only practical application of justice they could.

It was she said he said and she was very drunk at the time.

There was no DNA, no smoking gun, no definite evidence that she was raped by one of the cops while the other kept guard.

Did that happen? It is certainly likely but it is not overwhelmingly beyond a reasonable doubt certain.

In that case I think the jury did the only job they could do and acquit the two cops of the worst charges.

The anti-jury reaction is very unfair.

Everyone feels for the woman who was alleging the rape, but if the physical evidence was nonexistent and her story was deeply damaged by her drunken state what was a fair minded jurist to do?

In the end they did the right thing in my opinion.

It is horrendous to think that cops charged with protecting the public would act the way they did and it is perfectly correct to fire them.

But rape was a story too far.