Quote:
Originally Posted by badgeguy
The Widmer case is a case where the evidence actually leaves reasonable doubt and although he's been found guilty it was done so many believe erroneously.
|
Apparently two juries who actually heard all of the evidence and were in a position to evaluate the witnesses disagree that there was reasonable doubt.
Quote:
|
Many believe that his wife died due to a medical condition and all three trials this far tried to prove that but the prosecution kept doing whatever it had to to get the guilty verdict.
|
The "trials" didn't try to prove anything. The prosecution tried to prove guilt, the defense tried to prove that the wife died of a medical condition, or at least suggest reasonable doubt about that. While "many" may believe that he didn't do it, two juries disagreed and one couldn't decide.
FYI, when a verdict is set aside for something like juror misconduct, the result isn't dismissal of charges; the result is a new trial.
I get that there may be people who think he's innocent and has been wrongly convicted. But really, a case where there have been two guilty verdicts, one of which was overturned not because of insufficiency of the evidence or evidence that shouldn't have been admitted but because of juror misconduct and one of which was upheld on appeal (as best I can tell), doesn't work very well as a poster child for prosecutors who'll do anything for a conviction.