Though that conviction was overturned on appeal, they have had to watch for years as various newspapers branded their son a thug.

Rarely in the history of the state can the legal system have shown itself in such a bad light, incapable either of bringing closure to victims or the guilty to justice.

We are also left with a vacuum.

Nobody has been convicted for Brian Murphy's death and, unless there is a stunning turn of events, nobody ever will be. And so questions remain, some of which are dealt with on page 16 of this newspaper today. The main one, of course, is who killed Brian Murphy? Who, amongst the several youths who were present outside the Burlington Hotel that night, was responsible for Brian's death? Is it even possible, as the state pathologist Marie Cassidy seems to be suggesting, that nobody at all was responsible and that Brian's death was the result of the amount of drink taken, rather than of the beating he took?

On that latter point, this is what John Harbison said in evidence about Brian's injuries. He said that Brian was bleeding in the brain and that had he lived, the damage to his brain would have been irreversible.

He spoke of the intense purple staining on Brian's face, of the blood flowing from his nostrils and his mouth, about the damage to his central incision teeth, which had had bits knocked off them, and about the two wounds on his upper lip. He referred to two groups of bruises on his back leg, about the wounds to his mouth and chin, to his eye socket and upper jaw, all of them the result of considerable violence caused by blows or, more likely, kicks.

Harbision thought it was the swelling to the brain caused by these kicks that led to Brian's death. Cassidy, who did not examine Brian's body, thinks otherwise.

Meanwhile, Dermot Laide was wrongly convicted, according to an appeal court, while the real culprit or culprits walk free. It's no wonder that newspapers, magazines and television programmes have spent so much time trying to make sense of it all.

There's nothing at all wrong with this, of course. If the media has any role at all, it is to hold the centres of power accountable, to report the mistakes and failures of the institutions of state, to expose injustice and hypocrisy. The legal system didn't work properly following Brian Murphy's death and journalists and editors and columnists are all entitled to try and make sense of that. The only thing you might ask of them is that they do it with some sense of fairness.

Which brings us neatly to the latest issue of Village magazine, which came out on Thursday trumpeting what . . . judging from the headline on the cover . . . it thought was a genuine scoop. 'Laide: New Evidence Could Have Convicted Him', it said.

Written by Vincent Browne, the piece turned out to do a lot less than it said on the tin. Browne's argument was that evidence which had been ruled inadmissible at the trial would have been put before the jury during any new case. The evidence, Browne claimed, was various statements to gardai by Sean Mackey, one of the co-accused, in which he named Dermot Laide as having kicked and beaten Brian Murphy while he lay on the ground.

"In the original trial, " the piece said, "these references to Dermot Laide kicking Brian Murphy on the ground were deemed inadmissible for technical legal reasons."

That, however, is to miss the point entirely. Mackey's statements to gardai were read out to the jury by Edward Comyn, the DPP's senior counsel. In these accounts of what happened, Dermot Laide was identified by Mackey as having hit Brian Murphy on several occasions. For legal reasons, however, Laide had to be described as Person A when it came to the parts of the statement where Mackey claimed he saw Laide kicking Brian on the ground.

The problem with this approach was that lawyers for Dermot Laide's co-accused, Andrew Frame and Des Ryan, were allowed to get up in court and say that their clients were not Person A. It was clear to everybody in the courtroom, therefore, including the jury, that the Person A being referred to was Dermot Laide. It couldn't have been any more clear had Mackey pointed at Laide and named him as the guilty man.

Contrary, therefore, to Village's impressive cover, which must have helped the magazine sell a few extra copies, there was no new information that could convict Laide. It is old evidence, which could be adduced in any future case, but only in addition to a pile of other old evidence from dozens of witnesses, not a single one of whom saw Dermot Laide kick Brian Murphy in the head or on the ground. If Village had wanted to peer into the future and speculate on a new trial, it could just as easily have looked at a statement made to gardai by Frame, who said that he not seen Laide kick Brian Murphy. Then Village could have done a headline saying: "New Evidence Could Have Acquitted Laide". It's all guesswork at this point.

Of late, Village magazine has resembled a kind of media review, in which the mistakes, cock-ups and idiosyncrasies of other publications are highlighted, often in highly entertaining fashion. I presume the next issue of Village will draw attention to the way it has stretched the truth to breaking point in its current issue. I presume also that Village will apologise to the Laides for perpetuating the myth of Dermot's guilt and to the Murphys for, however briefly, raising their hopes that new evidence existed that would help get justice for Brian.

Or maybe I'm just being naive.