The nattering nabobs of criminal coddling are just trying to muddy the waters, again.
The article avoids discussing possible circumstantial evidence that helped lead the jury to a guilty verdict (e.g. accused’s whereabouts, conversations, web searches, texts, calibre of bullet matching rifle owned by defendant, missing weapon from defendant’s collection, etc. etc.). Maybe there’s nothing there, but I would think he would not have been to trial had there beennothing but the timing of the murder.
Just as a lack of fingerprints can not prove you did not touch something.
I barely read this crap any more.
The Defense strategy never changes - create reasonable doubt years or decades after the crime.
Their #1 weapon - un-identified or un-explained DNA at the crime scene.
Their #2 weapon - attack the integrity of the Judge, the investigators, or the prosecutor.
The prosecutor, the investigators, and the Judge, remain completely silent, because they risk a civil lawsuit by defending their conduct and their honesty.
How can a jury reach a "beyond reasonable doubt" decision to convict? In the Old Testament the testimony of 2 or more witnesses was required to convict for a capital crime. Under the New Covenenant we are not required to follow OT codes applied to Israel, but I've found that this is a very good piece of advice. In every case of a wrongful conviction I've seen, this standard of 2 witnesses was never met.
It's easy to make up a story of what you think happened in the past that explains the evidence, but a hyperreal number of alternate stories can also be proposed to explain any given data set. Eyewitness testimony is the only way to determine what did in fact actually happen. Convictions should never be made based on a clever story told by a lawyer without witnesses or a confession.
I seem to remember that back in the early 70's a dude said "a couple of barbs would be a grove." That's like, trippin out, Dude.
Why not follow every possible lead before you take someone’s life?