Madeleine74
Knower of Things
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2011
- Messages
- 11,556
- Reaction score
- 20,081
First I wouldn't murder anyone and I wouldn't stage anything, so "how would I do it" is irrelevant. Again, it's important to take oneself out of the equation. You didn't do this crime and I didn't do this crime and Sally down the street from me didn't do this crime, so opinions on 'how' it could have or possibly 'should have' been done is irrelevant.
There's only direct or circumstantial evidence. Both are given equal weight. Direct evidence is: a confession, an eyewitness to the murder, or a video of the person committing the murder. Everything else is "circumstantial." That includes blood, footprints, fingerprints, fibers, hairs, every single other thing you can think of is considered "circumstantial" evidence.
There are 3 eyewitnesses to the murder and 2 are dead (Devon & Damon) and 1 has repeatedly lied and not confessed, so there is no direct evidence in this case.
A jury voted unanimously that the state proved DR's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. There is no burden higher than that in U.S. criminal courts. Guilt is never proved 100% nor is any jury faced with that because unless a person was at the scene as a witness, they can't know with 100% certainty. And the legal burden doesn't require that level of proof.
In 15 years no evidence has pointed to anyone else. The facts of the case simply aren't going to change.
There's only direct or circumstantial evidence. Both are given equal weight. Direct evidence is: a confession, an eyewitness to the murder, or a video of the person committing the murder. Everything else is "circumstantial." That includes blood, footprints, fingerprints, fibers, hairs, every single other thing you can think of is considered "circumstantial" evidence.
There are 3 eyewitnesses to the murder and 2 are dead (Devon & Damon) and 1 has repeatedly lied and not confessed, so there is no direct evidence in this case.
A jury voted unanimously that the state proved DR's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. There is no burden higher than that in U.S. criminal courts. Guilt is never proved 100% nor is any jury faced with that because unless a person was at the scene as a witness, they can't know with 100% certainty. And the legal burden doesn't require that level of proof.
In 15 years no evidence has pointed to anyone else. The facts of the case simply aren't going to change.