Quote:
|
Originally Posted by strandinthewind
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  |
There is only circumstantial evidence, true. But it is extensive and all points to the same conclusion. So, there isn't a REASONable doubt here IMO. The prosecution has laid out the time line and given the jury plenty of information to convict. The problem is you have to be smart to convict this way, and most people aren't
