4 ms·
My issue with the trial was there was no proof beyond a reasonable doubt. It is like that documentary that caused waves recently, about the guy whose original
by mattdeboard 10y ago
My issue with the trial was there was no proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
It is like that documentary that caused waves recently, about the guy whose original rape conviction was overturned by DNA evidence only to get convicted of murder. It's not that there's no evidence Adnan had something to do with the killing. It's that the burden of evidence wasn't met.
- tptacek 10y agoIt's guilt beyond the reasonable doubt of the jury. Few people would ever be convicted if the standard was guilt beyond anyone's reasonable doubt.
- mattdeboard 10y agoThe issue though is that his attorney didn't do her job, to the degree that her didn't-do-her-job-tiveness was actually whatever the equivalent to malpractice is in law. So my point is that with hindsight and far more information, in the light of a far more thorough investigation than either side of the trial did in the first place, there's not enough evidence to rise above reasonable doubt. In my opinion, as an idiot layman spouting off on the internet about shit I know nothing about, obviously.
- tptacek 10y agoI agree strongly about his attorney. But he didn't end up with a crappy attorney for want of resources: she was an elite defense attorney, suffering (we now know) from serious health defects. Again: my point isn't that the verdict is correct. It's just that this isn't a great case for prosecution run amok.