sorrell skye
Former Member
- Joined
- Oct 30, 2009
- Messages
- 6,684
- Reaction score
- 7,007
It has not been proven - at best, some alternate possibilities have been discussed, but something being possible (or even probable) is not "beyond a reasonable doubt." You have to completely eliminate Oscar's version as being possible before you approach the requisite burden of proof.
To add to your list, I was not surprised OJ was acquitted because the state did not present their evidence effectively and their primary witnesses were impeached.
BBM
I believe the burden of proof in the SA legal system is similar to the US system.
In the trials I've watched, the jury instructions never included the instruction to eliminate all doubt, but must overcome reasonable doubt.
'Beyond a shadow of a doubt' and 'beyond a reasonable doubt' are vastly different.
Beyond a shadow of a doubt eliminates any and all doubt. The State is not required to meet that burden of proof.
Beyond a reasonable doubt can still leave room for doubt, but any remaining doubt will weigh less than the belief in what the State has presented.
So I don't believe it's accurate to say that one must completely eliminate OP's version as possible in order to reach a conclusion of guilt.