If someone is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, you should not have hundreds or even thousands of people who don’t agree.
Advertisements
If someone is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, you should not have hundreds or even thousands of people who don’t agree.
A guide to resources about the case of Scott Peterson
Insurance for you
Steve Koenig - Omaha & Grand Island, Nebraska - (308) 390-4931 Investigative Support for Attorneys - Steve.PrivateEye1@gmail.com Witness Locates & Interviews - Statewide Fact-Finding Services
Examining the Evidence From The State of Texas v. Darlie Routier
Independent Blogger of the Year, The Comment Awards 2016 & 2017
Journey into the mind of Edward Wayne Edwards
Lifestyle, Sports and Entertainment
Sharing My Story to Reclaim My Life
Victim of false allegations by drug addicts who made a scene to dissuade Jason from reporting a theft to the police.
by exposing corruption in our justice system
Advocates for the humane, compassionate treatment of all incarcerated women.
President of The Rutherford Institute, Author of 'Battlefield America' and 'A Government of Wolves'
20 Years Too Long
on Texas death row, executed January 20, 2016, Rest in Peace
In the current many HS cases the words beyond reasonable doubt are not used. The culture of You will be believed is used. The accuser is called the victim. The accused is sat behind a glass case with a police officer. Proper cross examination is not allowed. And Corroboratve evidence is not required. There are many wrongly convicted as a result of this. It is all wrong. These people have families. In my opinion the children and grandchildren of the wrongfully convicted are victims of child abuse. The system has inflicted this abuse on them. These trials are not fair trials. They should have been thrown out by the judge. If there is no corroborative evidence there should not be a trial. I am ashamed of this country. It has a justice system that allows innocent people to be convicted of non existent crimes.