Today, I came across the following two sentences on CNN's website, which immediately attracted my attention as they are totally clash with what english teachers teach.

1. **".....I feel like if we didn't get justice then those girls won't get justice either," the man said."**

You see it. The sentence structure completely clashes with all the conditional types. There is no such conditional: (If+simple past, the main clause is simple future). We are taught that in conditional 2, the main clause should have "would, could, or might". But this sentence does not have it, the sentence neither matches Conditional 2, nor 2 nor 3. 

2. **"If, at that time, they had found the killers after what had happened to those girls -- if there had been a proper investigation -- then maybe we wouldn't have to see what's happening right now," he said."**

Same here. It is conditional 3, because it is about an unreal past, which sould be "If+past perfect, the main clause should be "would have v3" or "could have v3" or "might have v3". But this sentence has none of them, either. 

You see, these examples are out there in real life. And they are used by best native speakers such as CNN text authors. If we had written such a sentence in the english lessons, we would have failed the exam. But you see, how they are commonly and naturally used in real native English.

Anyway, what conditional types are these two sentences? or are they really conditionals at all or are they bad english, or are they what?