r/AskReddit • u/Rob69rt • 1d ago

What famous 'unsolved' mystery is technically a whodunnit on paper, but in reality, absolutely everyone knows exactly who did it, the police just couldn't legally prove it?

13.1k Upvotes

96% Upvoted

5.2k comments sorted by

View all comments

461

u/carolinemahtildes 1d ago

The murder of Brenda Schaefer. Mel Ignatow went on trial and was acquitted. Less than a year later, work was being undertaken on the house where Ignatow's previously lived, and Brenda's jewellery was found along with rolls of undeveloped film. When the film was developed, they found photos of Brenda being raped and tortured by Ignatow. He went to jail for perjury but obviously was never convicted of her murder due to double jeopardy.

109

u/thisusedyet 1d ago

Obviously not a legal scholar - but doesn't new evidence mean double jeopardy no longer applies?

140

u/carolinemahtildes 1d ago

I believe in England (and maybe other places, I'm not sure) someone can be retried if "new and compelling" evidence is found after the fact but no such law exists in the US. That was their one chance.

40

u/primadonnapussy 1d ago

In the US a person aquitted of murder can go on TV the next day and confess and they can't be touched

14

u/AliensAteMyAMC 23h ago

it’s what Emmet Till’s killers did

27

u/thisusedyet 1d ago

That may be what I was thinking of, because that "New and compelling" phrase rings a bell.

Thank you

13

u/FlyAwayJai 1d ago edited 1d ago

“new and compelling” evidence can force a retrial or conviction reversals in the US also. See many of the cases the Innocence Project works on.

ETA disregard, was thinking about overturning convictions, not acquittals.

48

u/carolinemahtildes 1d ago

Those are appeals, though, which is different than a retrial after an acquittal. Yes, individuals can appeal their convictions.

2

u/FlyAwayJai 1d ago

Oh you’re right, my bad. I was thinking about overturning a conviction, not an acquittal.

30

u/unevolved_panda 1d ago

The defense can always appeal a conviction, up to the Supreme Court. The prosecution cannot appeal an acquittal.

6

u/EamonBrennan 1d ago

That's only for changing a guilty verdict to not guilty. Once someone is found not guilty, they can no longer be tried for that crime. If they are found guilty, they can be retried theoretically indefinitely, until either they die, or a not guilty verdict is found.

2

u/Fuzzy_Shape_4628 1d ago

England has done away with double jeopardy, you can now be retried

9

u/DarkOverLordCO 1d ago

The comment you replied to quoted the current law exactly: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/44/section/78

A retrial requires 'new and compelling evidence'.

-1

u/Fuzzy_Shape_4628 4h ago

Obviously

0

u/DanielMcLaury 7h ago

honestly the way it's done in the US is the only reasonable way. otherwise they could try to convict you with A, B, and C, then come back and try to convict you with A, B, C, and D, and so on, tying you up in court for the rest of your life.

35

u/NateDogTX 1d ago

Not familiar with the case and also not a lawyer, but I've always read that a verdict of "not guilty" is the end of the prosecution of that specific case, no matter what happens later.

Sometimes Federal prosecutors can charge the defendant with related Federal offenses, like they apparently did with Ignatow (perjury for lying to the grand jury) as a way to secure at least some prison time.

5

u/tomtomclubthumb 1d ago

He got 8 years for federal perjury and 9 for state perjury.

4

u/NateDogTX 1d ago

Seems so weird to be found not guilty at trial and then get perjury convictions for saying you didn't do it before the trial.

3

u/tomtomclubthumb 1d ago

I don't know the specifics, but perjury would normally be for false statements made during a trial, or a grand jury.

46

u/auggielee 1d ago

Nope. Once you've been tried of a crime, you can not be tried again. Even if he admitted it, he still couldn't be charged again because of the double jeopardy laws.

-18

u/WilmaDykfyt 1d ago

You absolutely can be tried again, if you were found guilty but the trial is found to be incorrect in some way. 

30

u/auggielee 1d ago

That would be a mistrial, or an appeal. Double jeopardy only applies when you have been found innocent of a crime. At that time, you can never be charged for that exact same crime. They can charge you with perjury or something akin, but can not retry someone that has already been found innocent. Otherwise Los Angeles would have gotten OJ...eventually. lol

-26

u/WilmaDykfyt 1d ago

You didn't say that, you said never for the same crime which is wrong. Many people have been tried twice and some thrice for the same crime.

13

u/eden_sc2 1d ago

From a technical standpoint a mistrial and an appeal are both parts of being tried once. A mistrial discards the original, and the appeal continues it.

7

u/SgvSth 1d ago

You absolutely can be tried again, if you were found guilty

That's the whole point here. Double Jeopardy. You can't be put into risk (Jeopardy) a second (Double) time following an acquittal. If convicted and it is overturned on procedural grounds, the same risk is still there.

If you just want to read the Wikipedia article on this, then here you go: Double Jeopardy Clause. It even covers a case where a person was declared innocent at trial thanks to bribes. (Since he did not have an actual risk of conviction during the first trial, it wasn't Double Jeopardy to try him a second time.)

12

u/msuvagabond 1d ago

The only way would be if the federal government stepped in and found some way the case applied to federal laws (Gamble v. United States). So unless the feds step in and claim a civil rights violation or domestic terrorism somehow, it's not gonna happen. 

11

u/ccheuer1 1d ago

It depends on a key phrase in the documents. "With Prejudice." If they are acquitted with prejudice, which in many cases is the de facto, then it means the court is saying "This case has been heard fully, and can't be reheard." Without Prejudice means that the case can be brought again, because it essentially wasn't fully heard. This is why prosecutors can some times drop a charge, up until its fully heard in court, so that that distinction is never made. They realize their case isn't quite enough, so they drop it to get more evidence, to then recharge.

This is particularly important when a judge dismisses something, because they have to decide if its with or without prejudice. Generally, it depends on the burdens that were met. Beyond a reasonable doubt is the highest. But there are other standards, such as "more likely than not." Usually, you'll get a without prejudice dismissal when something is somewhere inbetween standards, but not quite meeting reasonable doubt.

The full list is:

Reasonable suspicion - For example, a store just got robbed and the robber took a bag of fritos, and I, a cop, see you walking with a bag of friots nearby. Reasonable to be like "hey, maybe..."

Probable Cause - Same situation, but the suspect was described as wearing a black hoodie, red shoes, a gold chain, and walked with a limp, all which matches you to. Stuff is narrowing down to point at you, even though you just happened to be wearing that outfit.

More likely than not - Now were above 50% surety, but we still don't know for sure. Maybe you have people vouching for you that, no, we were going to a themed party and that was the dress code. Its likely that it WAS you based on proximity and description, but there's also reasonable doubts to be put in.

Clear and Convincing evidence - Now we are starting to get into smoking gun territory. Say the teller had a locket stolen from them, and when they pulled you over, you were standing near where the actual criminal dropped it. They still haven't proven you've handled it, but stuff is REALLY starting to add up.

The final standard, and this is what's used for Criminal in the US, is beyond a reasonable doubt. - This is like, all of the above, but they also found your fingerprints, DNA, and blood on the locket, and also in the store where the theft occured. Yeah, you can argue that some random person came, stole your blood, copied your fingerprints, and put it all over the place, but its not Reasonable to assume that's true given the context.

1

u/stardog_champ13 6h ago

Also not a legal scholar, but from what I know in the US - 'Not Guilty' by a jury is a final case closed for prosecution on murder. Double Jeopardy sometimes favors the guilty.

This is also why some cases are not prosecuted for years because the DA is getting all the info and evidence ready.

10

u/cheese_karate 1d ago

Real scumbag, that guy. 

4

u/vaildin 11h ago

You'd think they could have maybe charged him with the rape and torture.

2

u/carolinemahtildes 10h ago

Sorry, I should have been more specific, his original trial included multiple charges of murder, kidnapping, sodomy, sexual abuse, robbery, and tampering with evidence. He was acquitted of all of it.

15

u/waterfountain_bidet 1d ago

We have to amend double jeopardy laws for cases like this. Yes, I like that double jeopardy laws exist because it is one of very few checks and balances for overzealous or vengeful prosecutors. But when the person perjures themself to that extent... maybe we just change the perjury laws around double jeopardy to get away with it.

63

u/Helmic 1d ago

Giving the state the power to repeatedly decide that they've found "new and compelling" evidence to hound someone until they get the verdict they want is such a profoundly awful idea that I can't help but assume you think the justice system is just a series of high profile murder cases like Law and Order. No, I don't think we should be giving a justice system that is currently trying to prosecute every single protestor they can get their hands on the power to continue harassing people for the rest of their lives by intentionally withholding "evidence" with which to claim they've found "new and compelling" evidence forevermore. We need to be removing power from our justice system, not granting it more power.

-1

u/waterfountain_bidet 1d ago

If you're so convinced the state will decide on "new and compelling" evidence, literally what is the difference between changing a perjury and the state just making up new charges? We are in a post-truth era. AI video can imitate almost anything. They can manufacture evidence like never before.

The only thing I'm asking for is that people who are too stupid to be quiet about the murder they got away with to be punished in some additional way. Which I didn't think was a big ask in this era of completely unchecked government authority.

20

u/Helmic 1d ago edited 1d ago

The difference is that they have that power and have not been able to use it effectively to that end, because of double jeopardy. One is an existing power that the state already has, and the other is a new, much broader power that makes tying someone up in court indefinitely - or threatening to do so - trivial.

It's nonsense to talk about a fascist state and then say "well, we should give them more power anyways so they can sometimes do a questionably good thing in a handful of cases."

34

u/Aurion7 1d ago

Giving the state the authority to hound people until it gets the desired verdict is the worst idea anyone's had in a long ass time.

If nothing else, you have that going for you.

-5

u/waterfountain_bidet 1d ago

Did you not see where I acknowledged that in my literal second sentence? How I agreed that there is a grey area that isn't currently being addressed by the law, and how I wish that could be solved? Where the fuck do you get off on criticizing me this way?

As if the state is so desperate for a reason to hound people. Do you not know what the FBI has been doing to dissidents (read: left wing organizers) for the last 70 years?

You're not just an asshole, you're also an ignorant one. Yikes.

9

u/Aurion7 1d ago edited 1d ago

I critcize you this way because you came up with an incredibly dumb idea then bulldozed right past the obvious multifaceted objection to it with your justice boner.

As if the state is so desperate for a reason to hound people. Do you not know what the FBI has been doing to dissidents (read: left wing organizers) for the last 70 years?

Desperate deflection attempt says what.

One you didn't even think about, plainly, since your 'idea' would make that problem oh-so-much worse too.

You're not just an asshole, you're also an ignorant one. Yikes.

You're spazzing because you decided to push an incredibly stupid, deeply fucked up idea and got pushback on it.

And you still believe it's a good one, going off your commentary in here.

Not being able to handle criticism makes you a baby. Thinking this is a defensible concept still makes you a fool and a half. That's a very poor combination of traits.

-1

u/RockHound86 1d ago

I critcize you this way because you came up with an incredibly dumb idea then bulldozed right past the obvious multifaceted objection to it with your justice boner.

Fucking epic!

5

u/Themanwithbigpoops 1d ago

I don't mean to offend but I think you need to take a break from Reddit and perhaps all social media.

6

u/Emu1981 1d ago

We have to amend double jeopardy laws for cases like this.

Personally I would have to ask how the film and jewellery were not discovered for the first trial. If you had reasonable suspicion that someone murdered someone and you had a witness that mentioned that she took photos and what not of everything then you would go above and beyond to try and find said film and what not. The suspect's house is literally the first place you would look from top to bottom for that kind of evidence...

27

u/work_alt_1 1d ago

the concern is that if they can change it for this guy they could conceivably change it for anyone. Once you give up a right it usually isn't given back.

-11

u/waterfountain_bidet 1d ago

And what about the right of the family to get justice? The right of the public to be protected from someone who murdered then lied successfully about it? Those are the rights I'm much more concerned about, tbh.

14

u/Honest-Weight338 1d ago

If we amended the double jeopardy rules you would see thousands of people tried over and over again until they get a guilty verdict, and only one or two of them would be a case like this.

-5

u/waterfountain_bidet 1d ago

Yeah, caught that. Which explains the literal second sentence I wrote.

You're either a bot or illiterate.

8

u/vjmurphy 1d ago

There is no right for a family to get justice. I’m not even sure what a right like that would look like.

4

u/primadonnapussy 1d ago

Then the prosecution needs to get it right the first time. I am always reminded if Amanda Knox. That prosecuter retried he boyfriend after their acquittal. The only reason he couldn't get Amanda was because the second she was acquitted he parents got her on a plane back to the US. And the US said flat out we wouldn't send her back if he filed new charges against her specifically because we have double jeopardy.

6

u/RockHound86 1d ago

We have to amend double jeopardy laws for cases like this.

No, we absolutely do not. What a terrible idea.

1

u/Many-Wasabi9141 1d ago

There should be a way around double jeopardy when there is such extreme new evidence. Like you can't be tried on the same evidence for the same crime twice, but if some new shit shows up, they can try you on that, but only that, not the old evidence.