06-15-2012, 04:24 AM
Yes, but it is 'beyond a reasonable doubt'. The point is, much of the original evidence has been discredited by scientific advances and technology. For example, there was said to be 'blood' on the passenger side of the car, this turned out to be rust. This evidence at the time was damning and a large part of why she was convicted. One juror came out in an interview saying afterwards that they did not believe she did it, but felt pressured into the verdict. This is not a fair and correct use of the justice system if this is the case. Also the judge at the time said that he would have no reservation in giving her the death penalty if that was an option.
There has been a gentleman that came forward to say that he actually saw with his own eyes the baby and the dingo with the baby.
The point is, reasonable doubt, and there is definately doubt based on all the evidence that has come to light that was not available at the time.
This case polarised the nation. People were/are passionate about this case, she did/didn't do it. In the movie 'Evil Angels' where it shows Australians fighting amongst themselves about whether she did or didn't do it, is quite accurate.
There has been a gentleman that came forward to say that he actually saw with his own eyes the baby and the dingo with the baby.
The point is, reasonable doubt, and there is definately doubt based on all the evidence that has come to light that was not available at the time.
This case polarised the nation. People were/are passionate about this case, she did/didn't do it. In the movie 'Evil Angels' where it shows Australians fighting amongst themselves about whether she did or didn't do it, is quite accurate.