rather than attacking with a derogatory and false insinuation, but I suppose that would be too much to ask, eh?
This put me into an extended gigglefit, and now I've forgotten what I was going to say...
Anyway- to the OP's question - "Is there even a case against Baldwin?" let's run through a checklist of basic stuff that can incriminate a person:
Is there is conclusive DNA evidence of Baldwin's on the victims, or at the crime scene? -- No.
Can Baldwin conclusively be placed at the crime scene by any other means (aside from Miskelly's highly dubious confessions)? -- No.
Does Baldwin have a history of violence or anger toward the victims? - No.
Does Baldwin have a history of violence or cruelty toward children of that age? -- No.
Is there any conclusive evidence that places the serrated knife from the lake in Baldwin's hands, or at the crime scene? -- No. Though one "resembling it" was "once owned" ... etc. So yeah.. no.
Is it conclusive that ANY knife was used at the crime scene? -- Apparently not.
On and on... basically, there's less hard AND circumstantial evidence of Baldwin being a killer than there is two of the parents, and one of those has been exonerated, apparently.
(I am not saying I believe Hobbs did it, for sure, just pointing out the difference)
I believe the ONLY reason Baldwin was convicted was on the basis of Misskelly's confessions, which are confused and in places incorrect to vital details, to the point where I find them highly questionable.
I await the inevitable onslaught of polite, respectful discourse.
![Wink ;) ;)]()