Originally posted by seacaptain
I didn't follow the case close enough to know for sure why he got off, or the elements of the charges or whatever.
But one thing I thought I heard or read somewhere is that there just wasn't enough physical evidence. It was mainly just witness reports,
nothing concrete. It's tough to win a criminal case with just that, it's easy to raise suspicion of the reports.
Especially when the defendant is super-rich and famous.
And even more especially when the Mom was a nutjob. She didn't help the case one bit.
There just seems to have been a little doubt there that he did these things he was charged with, and that's all that's necessary to be found
not guilty. The state has to prove these things with a pretty high degree of certainty, which can be tough, for sure, and may be unfair sometimes,
but that's the way it is. It's fair though; you don't want to be sending someone off as a criminal without a pretty good degree of
certainty. |
But why would they let him go? Was it because the mom was such a nutjob?
