re: UPDATE: Idaho Murders Thread (Links inside)

quote:

---

A legal team doesn’t have to prove he’s innocent, they simply have to raise the doubts. It’s common litigation sense 101

---

I see you've never served your civic duty. Raising some doubts about certain aspects is not enough to sway a jury from conviction. They have to raise a reasonable doubt that he was not the one that killed these kids.

Can the defense prove he has ever been inside that house other than to kill them? Can they prove how his knife sheath got there other than him murdering them? Can they explain why he got in his car around the same time as the murderer and turned off his phone, coincidentally having the specific type of car known to belong to the murderer?
I believe they could explain why he drove around that area days before and after, but that going along with the murder is going to tie him to it.

Raising "doubt" is not just giving some excuse why it couldn't have been him...you have to show that the doubt is real and why