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.
38
u/Softestwebsiteintown 1d ago
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.