Quote:
|
Originally Posted by SuzeQuze
I disagree. I believe that there isn't reasonable doubt here. Here is a legal def:
REASONABLE DOUBT - The level of certainty a juror must have to find a defendant guilty of a crime. A real doubt, based upon reason and common sense after careful and impartial consideration of all the evidence, or lack of evidence, in a case.
Proof beyond a reasonable doubt, therefore, is proof of such a convincing character that you would be willing to rely and act upon it without hesitation in the most important of your own affairs. However, it does not mean an absolute certainty. So the jurors do not have to be absolutely sure to convict. If they use logic they have to convict because there are no LOGICAL explanations to let Peterson off. |
But that is not the point. The point is it is the prosecution's burden to show beyond a reasonable doubt that he committed these crimes. They have not shown that. They have not directly linked him with the crime with anything but circumstantial evidence. But, juries have convicted on circumstantial evidence, which IMO is essentially all that has been shown here.
Again, this is legal theory and procedure and not actual culpability
