3 ms·
Yes, but I can't talk about them because it's part of an active investigation.
by ClintEhrlich 10y ago
Yes, but I can't talk about them because it's part of an active investigation.
- tardo99 10y agoAlso, was there one piece of evidence that really proved he couldn't have done it? I read a bunch of it, and it sounds like you can't prove anything beyond a reasonable doubt, but that he still might have done it (meaning, there just isn't much to go on).
- jessaustin 10y agoAre you by chance a cop?
- tempestn 10y agoYour comment might be read to imply that he shouldn't be exonerated unless proven innocent, but giving the benefit of the doubt I expect you're just wondering whether the evidence does in fact prove innocence, or whether it was simply shown not to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt (both of which should result in exoneration). I'm curious myself.
- tardo99 10y agoI know and agree he should be exonerated if the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard can't be reached. I was just curious if there was some evidence that showed that he was factually innocent.
- ClintEhrlich 10y ago1. There was no evidence of Ray's guilt. Zero. Nada. Every single accusation is refuted point-by-point in our letter to the DA's office, which I invite you to read. 2. There was physical evidence that directly exonerated Ray, including the the negative results of the gunshot residue test on his uniform, and the absence of pseudo-stipling on his pants. 3. There was overwhelming circumstantial evidence pointing to Ray's innocence. For example, the prosecution could never explain why he would have brought an unregistered 9mm firearm to work in the first place. Nor could they explain why, after committing the murder, he would have stayed at the scene and called the police. 4. There is significant evidence pointing to the guilt of a different individual, which will be revealed once the current active investigation is finished.