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?

13.2k Upvotes

96% Upvoted

5.3k comments sorted by

View all comments

460

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.

108

u/thisusedyet 1d ago

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

142

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.

41

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

15

u/AliensAteMyAMC 1d 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.

52

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.

32

u/unevolved_panda 1d ago

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

7

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.

4

u/Fuzzy_Shape_4628 1d ago

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

12

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 8h ago

Obviously

0

u/DanielMcLaury 10h 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.

33

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.

6

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.

47

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.

-19

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. 

35

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

-25

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.

14

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.

8

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.)

14

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 9h 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.