Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeRedskin
In the "CSI" America, it's seems to be assumed that, if there isn't a forensic smoking gun, you have "reasonable doubt". To me, that's just an excuse to abdicate making a decision. People were found guilty before fingerprint tracing and DNA evidence was around.
I haven't been following the case but, if there was strong circumstantial evidence, that, IMHO, should have been enough to convict.
|
The whole case was basically "that seems like she's guilty" or "that doesn't mae any sense." They didn't really have anything. They couldn't even really piece together a feasible timeline.