Basically the distance away the murder happened meant he could have easily gone to the game, left, committed the murder and gone back between the other 2 pieces of evidence that placed him at the stadium.
But he walked past the TV show and was caught on camera at a time which meant he wouldn't have been able to get back in time if he was still at the stadium.
i can't remember why his daughter couldn't testify to him being there the whole time.
it's crazy to me that someone would have to prove they were at the alibi the entire time but the prosecutor wouldn't have to provide any evidence at all that they had actually left the alibi.
It's just frustrating when the burden of proof is supposed to be on the state, not the defendant. It's a criminal case, not a civil case. Fucking ridiculous that people get put away without real proof that it was them.
The problem with "reasonable doubt" is that people aren't reasonable enough to judge what that is. What "reasonable doubt" is becomes a cultural standard, influenced by media and politicians rather than a serious philosophical discussion.
If you can't prove you were there at a time incompatible with the murder, it's not really an alibi from my understanding.
If your ticket is scanned at 6:55, and the murder happened an hour away at 8:30, your 6:55 scan doesn't mean shit, even if you have a credit card purchase for a churro in the parking lot at 9:45. That is easily enough time to get there, murder, and come back. Made up situation, but the point is there
Yeah I think we all agree that wrongly convicting someone sucks
but if all you had to do to get away with murder was purchase a ticket somewhere, at some time, then go commit the murder
that... that's not gonna work, you know?
e: Some of you seem to think what this post said was "If you have a ticket purchased sometime around the time of murder, that means you're guilty and this wrongful conviction was justified"
I guess you all just didn't read the first sentence I wrote? Or like... the rest of it?
Except that we know there was zero evidence actually connecting this guy to the murder. Only, I believe, a fabrication by a witness saying they saw the guy. If they had found some of the victim’s blood on his clothes, the Dodgers game alibi potentially falls apart. In the absence of any actual evidence linking him to the crime, the Dodgers game alibi is completely plausible and provides plenty of reasonable doubt that the guy did it.
If all you have is “someone said they saw him there and he can’t physically prove he wasn’t”, you probably shouldn’t be trying to put that guy away for murder.
Yeah, and I’m willing to bet that the “blurry CCTV footage” would have been allowed as evidence if it supported the prosecution’s claim… but because it supported the defense, they couldn’t allow it.
This just seems like a case where they wanted a conviction no matter if it was the right person or not, considering there seems to be zero things linking him to the murder.
That’s the sense that I got. They had put all their eggs in the “fuck this guy” basket and were more concerned about having a guy to pin it on than getting the right guy.
If all you have is “someone said they saw him there and he can’t physically prove he wasn’t”, you probably shouldn’t be trying to put that guy away for murder.
I didn't say otherwise. What I did say was that having a ticket stub purchased at some point before the murder was not a sufficient alibi.
The rest of the stuff you argued against wasn't any part of my statement.
I’m not arguing just to argue. Your comment was suggestive of “you have to prove yourself innocent”, which isn’t the foundation of a competent justice system. It doesn’t make sense to me to suggest that the burden should be on us for constantly crafting alibis as opposed to the prosecution securing evidence that we actually committed a crime.
Even if you did commit a crime and couldn’t produce enough evidence to prove that you couldn’t have done it, the burden still rests on the state to provide sufficient evidence of your guilt. Opportunity is only one part of the equation.
Except since he clearly didn't commit the murder then what evidence could they possibly have that made it so air tight he WAS the murderer? Like the conviction had to be built on nothing.
We're not talking about this situation specifically anymore. I don't know what evidence was presented at the murder trial. I wasn't one of the jurors. I don't think you were either. Clearly they got it wrong.
But regardless, you can't rely on having a ticket stub purchased at some time and say it's proof you didn't commit the murder
Are you asking me? Or do you think asking the rhetorical question provides a defense? Do you think I think this wrongfully convinced proven innocent man is guilty?
No, I don't think you would put him in jail. It's a rhetorical question to the prosecutors. It's just that, he'd have needed accomplices. So where is that whole discussion? How can you convict if you don't even have a proper narrative of what happened?
Don't you need a proper narrative of what happened? Did he take her, did he leave her at the game? Did he have accomplices?
This is basic police work, no?
Come on, you can't just say "oh he left and drove an hot hour and did it" with no evidence, and without constructing even a basic narrative of what might have happened and why and how?
A 6 year old left by herself for that amount of time would attract attention. It's a serious hole in their reconstruction of what happened, and surely they'd need to address it.
And if he had an accomplice, why aren't they arrested?
You can't just have gaping holes in your story when you're trying to construct a case for murder.
Depends on what other evidence exists for linking you to the crime. “He looks like the guy” and a potential motive wouldn’t persuade me beyond a reasonable doubt.
Such an alibi could, and in some cases should, convince a jury to return a not guilty verdict. It all depends on the totality of the evidence.
This is completely wrong. To be convicted of a crime it needs to be proved BEYOND a reasonable doubt. This means that you CANNOT have a reasonable doubt that they did it. If the alibi of him being at the game raised a reasonable doubt, the correct route in law is to acquit.
I had a lawyer explain to me that "beyond reasonable doubt" essentially means 95% sure. I think the issue is that jurors put too much stock into prosecutors even though the prosecutor has a legal duty to always assume the defendant is guilty from the start. Just like the defense has a legal duty to always assume innocence. The rest of judicial system has to assume that defendant is also innocent. But prosecutors can't be defending the defendant.
I am guessing that because of the age of the daughter, her testimony wouldn't be credible. I feel like stadium tickets should have been enough for reasonable doubt.
doesn't have to prove he was there, just provide a reasonable doubt as to guilt. It's more evidence than there must have been to claim he was at the site of the crime at that time.
There was an eyewitness who identified him as being at the scene of the murder. That eyewitness ended up being wrong, but that's strong evidence that he committed the murder. Much stronger evidence than a ticket stub that doesn't show he was actually at a baseball game
Being wrong seems like terrible evidence, I dunno about you. Maybe "eyewitness" testimony is not reliable? I can say I saw you do whatever, it's just my word against yours.
Obviously they didn't realize the witness was wrong until later on?
Do you think we should discredit all eyewitness testimony? If so, say goodbye to the vast majority of assault, domestic violence, and sex crime convictions. Those tend to not have physical evidence, and rely on he said/she said.
Assault doesn't mean you were severely injured. Most statutes require physical harm or attempted physical harm. If I slapped you, that would be assault. But there may not be any other evidence that I slapped you.
Same for sexual assault. Most victims do not report the assault immediately, especially children. There might not be any physical evidence, but that doesn't mean a crime did not occur.
I'm well aware that convictions do not guarantee guilt. I'm also well aware that many guilty people are never charged, or may not be convicted based on the evidence allowed in at trial
I wouldn't say it's a reasonable defense, but the burden of proof is on the state, not the defendant. If he says "I wasn't there." Or "I didn't do it." Then it's enough without evidence stating otherwise.
An alibi that's not airtight isn't going to protect you, but you don't need one unless the prosecutor has evidence that it was you. The fact that he was put in jail when he didn't do it is disgusting, because it means that there was plenty of reasonable doubt there to be dug up.
If the prosecutor doesn't have enough to prove that it was you, then there is reasonable doubt. I would love to know more about what evidence they had that supposedly was so damning that people would simply put an innocent man in jail instead of doing their part as members of the jury.
145
u/RoxieMoxie420 1d ago
not his ticket stubs or any purchase records from the game? They won't let his 6-year-old daughter corroborate he was at the game with her?