Quote:
Originally Posted by jenna26
I don't know that much about this case, which is why I didn't reply before, but the problem is, when the law thinks they have the right person or persons, it is really hard to get them to look in another direction. Once there is a conviction, it is damn near impossible.
The justice system is flawed, of course, and always will be, because of human error. If you have plenty of money, its much easier to find an attorney that can get you off on technicalities or make pretty important evidence look inconsequential. And if you have none, its easy to get a lawyer that doesn't care, or have the resources to fight the case properly. Its dangerous for someone to be convicted on no evidence or very thin "evidence". There is a reason why there is a burden of proof, and why if there is REASONABLE doubt, there just shouldn't be conviction.
People shouldn't be railroaded because they may or may not be guilty. There just has to be proof they commited the crime.
I am not sure if that is what happened here though, like I said, I just don't know that much about the case.
|
That's pretty much what happened. No murder weapon, no physical evidence, no motive, forced confession, et cetera. One of the prosecutors even said that without that confession, the case against them would be 50/50 at best.