“The experts did not say it did come from the pistol or that it didn’t come from the pistol.”
—
Prosecutors scrambled to find long-lost evidence and rouse witnesses — some of whom might have died.
We don’t really know what happened. It is hard to build a case after 30 years. I would imagine most half-way descent lawyers could get someone off a murder conviction of 30 years ago if a lot of the witnesses have died and the evidence compromised.
All that said, from what little we know about the case now, I am not sure I could have convicted him.
But we need to remember that there were 12 jurors that heard the evidence then and all agreed that, beyond a reasonable doubt, that they man committed murder.
So do I believe he’s innocent? I don’t know.
What we must always remember:
Jurors in any trial only hear what the judge deems admissable.
I didn’t look at the merits of this case, but I am ever mindful that LEO, judges, prosecutors get their checks from the same source & they are expected to produce results.
WE the people demand justice - why are we surpised when we get it, or when they get it wrong? They’re only giving us what we pay them for.
Outcome based justice, it’s what’s for dinner/the other white meat.
The presumption of innocence should prevail. Innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. I do not believe that standard has been met for conviction.