The jury heard 23 weeks of testimony. We read occasional newspaper articles. It looks like the prosecution proved that Peterson could have done it. Maybe even probably done it. I don't see that the prosecution proved beyond a reasonable doubt that he done it. It looks like a verdict was reached by removing any juror (well, two jurors) who dared to disagree with the majority. One thing to remember is that there have now been many trials where the jury found someone guilty beyond a reasonable doubt -- with firsthand eyewitness testimony -- but it was later found through DNA and other scientific testing that the convicted person was innocent. The evidence in the Peterson case seems rather thin. Oh, one other thing -- the prosecution proved Peterson guilty beyond the slightest doubt of being an a*****e. But he wasn't charged with that.
1 Comments:
The jury heard 23 weeks of testimony. We read occasional newspaper articles. It looks like the prosecution proved that Peterson could have done it. Maybe even probably done it. I don't see that the prosecution proved beyond a reasonable doubt that he done it. It looks like a verdict was reached by removing any juror (well, two jurors) who dared to disagree with the majority. One thing to remember is that there have now been many trials where the jury found someone guilty beyond a reasonable doubt -- with firsthand eyewitness testimony -- but it was later found through DNA and other scientific testing that the convicted person was innocent. The evidence in the Peterson case seems rather thin. Oh, one other thing -- the prosecution proved Peterson guilty beyond the slightest doubt of being an a*****e. But he wasn't charged with that.
Post a Comment
<< Home