Quote:
Originally Posted by markksman
He is 100% not guilty based on the trial he got. I think a significant percentage of people who think he is not guilty feel similarly.
The failures by law enforcement and the judicial system were egregious in this case. It's not a matter of weighing evidence. It is a matter of the system screwing up so badly there was nothing at all legitimate about his trial. So 100% not guilty is the only reasonable conclusion to draw based on what happened.
Okay, you believe reasonable doubt was established at the trial and as a result the correct verdict was not guilty.
But based on everything you know of the case, what probability would you assign to Avery actually having committed the murder? I mean, it's fully legitimate to say "I believe it's x% likely that he is guilty, but that is not sufficient to convict him." What ballpark figure would you assign to x - above 80, above 50, lower? Or would your position be that he is likely or almost certainly innocent of any involvement in the murder? It's even possible to say that you are virtually certain he is the killer but should have been acquitted based on the trial.
Any of the other posters are welcome to chime in. Basically, it makes sense to define as precisely as possible what position you are defending. If you are saying it is 90% likely he is guilty but 10% is enough for reasonable doubt, that is very different from arguing for his innocence.