1. He was proven innocent in court and guilty in civil court of another charge not directly murder.
1.2 He isn't a murderer as proven in court and all notation after that can only reffer to him as a suspect but after the trial he is a free man and unreleated to the murder. It can be then concluded the police of that area have a cold case on their hands and it would be sad if they didn't pursue the real killer.
2. Media delivered a righteous stigma on this fellow, even after his guilt couldn't be proven in court by a jury of unbiased and then nonexposed peers.
Logic 101: If your not proven guilty then your innocent, he was never guilty the point is to provide evidence to support that he is guilty. In other words Innocent until proven otherwise.
3. The judge that ruled against him was clearly a woman, she allowed cameras in the courtroom which is allowed in Florida but brings to light that she believed she had something to prove.
4. This mans case seems oddly convenient, unless he suddenly became super dumb after commiting the Murder of his ex-wife like others are commited to believe the ammount of evidence was just too much to believe possible. I haven't seen a case with this much evidence pressed on one defendant outside of civil or contract courts. Even in civil that much evidence is rare to come by.
In the end this man was guilty of possession and not guilty of murder. But this case seemed too well placed.
Just my two cents.
I'm Unamerica and you can too.
The Official Huge Monster Hunter Thread:
