Quote:
Originally Posted by frankotank
what's your point?
Evidence that is beyond reasonable doubt is the standard of evidence required to validate a criminal conviction.
that is the jurors duty.
so I'll say again.....reworded...how in the **** any of those jurors could sit there and honestly say they have NO reasonable doubt is just beyond me!
as a matter of fact it was discussed that initially it was pretty much split down the middle and that a couple of folks were total turds in their lack of participation and lack of entertaining any other concept other than GUILTY. too bad none of the folks that DID have reasonable doubt folded and went with the crowd. seems to me they failed in their duty. if you have a reasonable doubt...then you must vote not guilty. amiright?
hell the cops from the first wrongful conviction....their absolute and TOTAL participation would have been enough of a reasonable doubt for me. not to mention the lack of blood in either supposed murder scene.
honestly....I think he probably did it. but as a juror....I'm pretty sure I'd have doubt.
|
There was defntely reasonable doubt. No blood at the scene. 4 months later they find the evidence? Give me a break. He may be guilty but the cops totally ****ed this up. Just how did he kill her like they say he did without the blood being everywhere?