I especially like the part when Clouseau, thinking he has solved the case, (which of course he hasn't) turns to the camera and asks the rhetorical question, "What do we know?" and of course, he knows nothing.

Well, the Ray Lewis trial has ended and "what do we know?" We know nothing. If they ever write a book listing the most inept prosecutions ever, this one will be highlighted as the standard by which all others are to be measured.

Baltimore Ravens linebacker Ray Lewis, Reginald Oakley and Joseph Sweeting were charged in the stabbing deaths of Jacinth Baker and Richard Lollar outside an Atlanta, Georgia, nightclub after a post-Super Bowl party. The three each were charged with murder and felony assault. During the trial, Lewis agreed to plead guilty to obstruction of justice charges in exchange for testifying against Sweeting and Oakley. Lewis was sentenced to a year of probation, but no jail time. Oakley and Sweeting were acquitted of all charges.

There are certain time-tested rules of trial that all prosecutors follow, whether they are trying the most minor misdemeanor or the most heinous crime.

First, you don't use your opening statement to the jury to promise them something you can't produce.

Second, if a witness takes you by surprise and changes his story on the witness stand, you possess enough knowledge of the law to know how to impeach his testimony.

Finally, you don't take a defendant you were calling a vicious murderer two days earlier and suddenly, while your case is collapsing, allow him to plead guilty to a misdemeanor, and then try to sell him and his testimony to the jury in an attempt to salvage your case.

The prosecutors in the Ray Lewis murder trial didn't just break one of these rules; they broke all of them, with a very predictable result. Jurors, in my experience, tend to look at the prosecutor as someone they can trust.

They are savvy enough to understand that the defense lawyer is there to defend his client, and studies have shown, that most jurors initially believe the person on trial is most probably guilty. However, the jurors are told to put those thoughts aside and make their decision based solely on the evidence that is presented.

But when prosecutors begin their case by telling the jury they will produce several witnesses who will place Ray Lewis as a participant in the melee which left two people dead, and then fail to do that, it is the legal equivalent of shooting yourself in the foot.

The lead prosecutor, Fulton County District Attorney Paul Howard, claims that several of his witnesses "backed up on him," as trial lawyers say. That means that they said one thing during their pre-testimony interviews and then said something else while testifying.

While that is unusual it is not unheard of. What a lawyer does when that happens is pretty much the same in any jurisdiction. After the witness testifies differently from his prior statement, the lawyer then asks, "Sir, do you remember when you met with me and Officer Van Susteren?"

Answer: "Yes."

Next question: "Sir, isn't it a fact that at that time you told us something different than what you are testifying to now?"

If the witness says "no," you call the cop to the stand and have him testify as to what the prior statements by the witness were. Its called impeaching a witness by a prior inconsistent statement. Its something every law student who has completed a course in evidence knows.

Mr. Howard, who said he was surprised by several witnesses' testimony, never bothered to try to impeach the witnesses by calling those who had overheard the prior statements.

Finally, I would suggest that when a prosecutor starts a trial by calling Ray Lewis a murderer, and then tells the jury in essence never mind what I said before, this is a great guy who merely lied to the cops when they were investigating this murder, the prosecution has major problems.

What a good defense lawyer would do, and in fact what they did in this case, was to immediately suggest to the jury that Ray Lewis, the prosecutions star and most compelling witness and previously lied to the cops to protect himself, so why wouldn't he then lie to the jury to protect himself.

And so as this case comes to its crashing conclusion, with the jury deliberating about five hours to clear the two remaining defendants of all charges, all that is left are the recriminations and two dead young men and their grieving families.