Gary Gauger, who spent 3-1/2 years on death row in Illinois for the murder of his parents. In 1996, he was exonerated. He had been convicted by "Circumstantial evidence"
Gary Gauger, who spent 3-1/2 years on death row in Illinois for the murder of his parents. In 1996, he was exonerated. He had been convicted by "Circumstantial evidence"
I just did a more thorough search on this case.
He had his mom's car.
He lied about his whereabouts.
He had strands of their hair in his house
he had strands of hair in his car.
He had latex gloves found in his house.
Found guilty because of the above "Circumstantial Evidence" some of that is similar to the Peterson case.
Goes to show, anybody can lie about their whereabouts. Actually, I dont think that would be hard to do. If my wife went missing, Im sure I would be a little mixed up as to what all i did that day and where i was at an exact moment that day.
I think there is at least as great a likelihood of a wrongful conviction through errant "direct" (i.e., eye-witness) evidence. I suspect that there have been more wrongful convictions based upon intentional or mistaken identification of criminal defendants. The system relies upon humans at all levels, and is subject to error. We use the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard to make the hurdle very high for the prosecution. If people are willing to lie in order to convict someone, that can occur, and is no less criminal than the murder that occurred at another's hand. The question is, so what? Do we then not try people for crimes? Abolish the death penalty? What? I think the system as it is, with its flaws, is a good one, and for what it is worth (that is, what you are paying for my opinion), I think Peterson did it, and his defense fell apart because there WAS no good defense.