Final Answer:
The prosecutors were able to bring the bombers to justice through a combination of substantial evidence, likely including forensic analysis, witness testimonies, and investigative work. The trial was likely based on a comprehensive presentation of this evidence, demonstrating the guilt of Bob Chan Bliss and the two other men involved in the bombings.
Step-by-step explanation:
Firstly, the process of bringing individuals to justice for a bombing typically involves thorough investigation by law enforcement agencies. This investigation often includes collecting physical evidence from the crime scene, conducting forensic analyses, and interviewing witnesses. In the case of Bob Chan Bliss, being nicknamed "Dynamite Bob" suggests a potential history or association with explosive devices, making him a person of interest. The gathering of evidence may have involved linking him to the explosives used in the bombings through forensic analysis, identifying his involvement in the planning or execution of the attacks.
Secondly, the mention of two other guilty men and one who died before trial implies a network or conspiracy behind the bombings. Prosecutors likely built their case by connecting the dots between the actions of all involved individuals. Witness testimonies could have played a crucial role in establishing the chain of events, motives, and the roles each person played in the bombings. Additionally, any communications or materials linking the individuals to the planning or execution of the attacks could have been presented as evidence during the trial.
In conclusion, the successful prosecution of Bob Chan Bliss and the other bombers was likely achieved through a meticulous gathering of evidence, forensic analysis, and witness cooperation. The combination of these elements would have formed a compelling case that demonstrated the guilt of the accused individuals. The legal process ensures that justice is served based on a thorough examination of facts and evidence.