Quote:
Originally Posted by calgarygeologist
I find this to be a really interesting case and I'm trying to remain objective when watching the case unfold. The Crown and police have done an excellent job of putting together the crime that was committed but actually matching that crime to Garland requires a bit of speculation. It is unlikely that someone else killed the victims but at the same time there doesn't seem to be enough evidence to implicate Garland of murder. I wonder how long the jury will take to come to a decision or if it will become a hung juror situation.
|
The test is not scientific unassailable complete proof he did it. The test is "beyond reasonable doubt." It does not require speculation to conclude Garland did it, but it does require construction of the circumstances.
Based on the construction of the known evidence, "reasonable" doubt seems hard to find.
I could think of instances of "unreasonable" doubt. For example, it was really Garland's elderly parents who did this, and poor Garland jr. just happened to have a hate on for someone the 80-year-olds killed.