4 ms·
> That's why police gather all kinds of evidence and present it to a jury. There was no jury evaluating evidence and deciding guilt or innocence in this case.
by droithomme 7y ago
> That's why police gather all kinds of evidence and present it to a jury.
There was no jury evaluating evidence and deciding guilt or innocence in this case. There was also no case. Only a proclamation of guilt against a man who died long ago and had no ability to defend himself, no defense attorney assigned, no arguments made before a jury whatsoever. The only "forensic" evidence made by some dodgy startup pushing this story to sell their "services".
That's not justice at all. It's not even a caricature of justice. It's complete and absolute nonsense. Holding this up as an example of a done guilty man found is an atrocity and everyone doing so should be deeply ashamed.
- ljf 7y agoDid you not read that they dug him up to do a full dna analysis to compare to seen found in the victims underwear? And that there was other evidence to link him which is what led to the permission to exhume him? The only reason that this wasn't taken further is as he was dead.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- jfk13 7y agoThe issue remains, though, that if he were alive all this evidence would result in a trial -- at which the prosecution would have had to prove their case beyond reasonable doubt. The accused would have the opportunity to defend himself, to have legal representation, to present evidence that might call into question or contradict aspects of the prosecution's case, etc. As it stands, it seems that due process has been bypassed. I'm troubled by the idea that in the case of a dead defendant, it's OK to bring in a guilty verdict on the basis of an entirely one-sided "trial".