Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Hans_ACS
I followed his trail years ago. I still can't believe how he got to walk away. The evidence was overwhelming, besides a couple of 'uncertententies'. It seems, the jury ONLY looked at these few uncertenties to come to a decision...
|
That's the thing.........in order to get convicted, it has to be beyond a shadow of a doubt. If there is any doubt that he isn't the killer and someone else is, however small, they can't convict him. He may have been 99.9% guilty, but those uncertainties may have cast that .1% that he didn't do it, which is why he walked. That's why he lost the civil case, because in that type of trial, it only has to be beyond a preponderance of a doubt, where he only needs to be 51% guilty or liable to get convicted.
__________________
If you feel the need to bash/rag/insult/demean someone, please read
this before you do. Thanks and have a great day!
