Making A Murderer

[Stoked]

Wow

[14thStbikes]

Well he turned out ok despite having a schmuck for a dad.

[Allah]

I definitely think brendan was innocent, the lads clearly as autistic as they come and was bullied all over the place, Steven..... Id say 67.5% convinced of his innocence, hes lived a hard life and I wouldn't be surprised if he was a bit more mentally scarred than we're led to believe, there are some sketchy details here and there too.

My thoughts exactly. Some of the letters to his ex-wife were a bit loopy to say the least. Whole programme was completely mental though - has anyone seen The Jinx? Almost like the reverse situation in every way (rich guy seemingly manages to get away with it).

[Prodigal Son]

That is wild BK is that guy's kid! Fine investigatory work sir.

[cmc4130]

. . . Id say 67.5% convinced of his innocence,  . .

That's interesting that you use a percentage.  I think of it that way also. 

Many people do not understand what "Beyond a Reasonable Doubt" means.  Some people think it means 100% certainty. It doesn't.   Courts leave it deliberately vague, and do not say what percentage of certainty constitutes "beyond a reasonable doubt" or said another way, what percentage of doubt a person has is "reasonable."   One person might think it means 75%, while another think it means 90%.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_doubt   People seem to change their idea of "reasonable doubt" depending on the severity of the crime or punishment. If the defendant can be sent to death row, a lot of jurors will think there needs to be more certainty.  This is why sometimes you have bifurcated trials where one jury decides only guilty/not-guilty (and are not given hints at punishment levels) and another jury decides punishment.

In civil trials (for money damages), the standard of proof is "preponderance of the evidence." This means "more likely than not" which essentially means 51% proof of someone's liability.

[LukeTom]

This is interesting, and i recall in a case (cant remember which) it was said to the jury that it should be obvious what "reasonable doubt" is. It is a doubt which is not unreasonable. I don't think there is a percentage you can put on it, which is why the courts have done their best to avoid it.