Craig Thrift
This is one of those cases that have me on the fence. Deep down I do believe that the right person was charged, convicted and sentenced for murder, but I question whether I feel there was truly enough evidence to prove it. I suppose that I am part of the problem when it comes to the “new age” of crime. I have heard prosecutors time and time again talk about how everyone wants DNA and 100% proof in trials today and have given up on the “beyond a reasonable doubt” concept. Now, I do not believe that I am that bad. In fact, I cringe every time I hear someone say that someone was convicted on “nothing more than circumstantial evidence.” I have spoken about this before quite often here in my blogs. Reality is that nearly every case is based on circumstantial evidence and they always have been. I also do not believe that DNA is necessarily helpful, nor is it necessary, in every case. This case involves several issues that separately they would not necessarily cause an ...