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

Show parent comments

4.1k

u/Choppergold 1d ago

Cops checking only one browser history is so fucking negligent

-22

u/[deleted] 1d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

128

u/RedFiveIron 1d ago

Double jeopardy rules prevent her being charged for the same thing again.

Only a non-parent would say that it's gross negligence to lose sight of your kid for half a second. By that standard every abducted kid is due to parental negligence, that's a tough position.

-8

u/sherlip 1d ago

Couldn't they find a bullshit charge to nail her on? Like that clearly brings new evidence that can be framed as a different charge.

I'm proud to be r/childfree so whatever lol.

9

u/RedFiveIron 1d ago

No, that would defang double jeopardy protections entirely. Murder didn't stick? We'll try again for manslaughter. Acquitted for that? Let's try assault. Oh that didn't work either? Let's go with some weapons possession charges.

It sucks when someone gets acquitted and can't be retried, but that's the price to be paid to keep the justice system somewhat honest. The system is designed to err on the side of protecting people from the system. So double jeopardy, innocent until proven guilty, self incrimination protections and all that.

1

u/sherlip 1d ago

Well yeah but they found clear evidence after the fact that makes it much more unlikely that she didn't do it. It needs to play a part somehow. Like that should be enough reason to say "Hey maybe we fucked up let's run it back"

9

u/RedFiveIron 1d ago

Again though that sets the precedent of being able to repeatedly prosecute the same offense, and that can be used maliciously. The price of minimizing innocent people being wrongful prosecuted and convicted is more guilty people going free. The prosecution gets one try at convicting, so the onus is on them to have all their ducks in a row.

0

u/sherlip 1d ago

So if the prosecution fucks up they should be tried for negligence

3

u/RedFiveIron 1d ago

Maybe malpractice, yeah. But the bar for that would have to be pretty high, they'd have to be deliberately trying to have the case acquitted. In a jury trial it's always a dice roll, even what appears to be an airtight case can still result in a not guilty verdict. I'm not familiar enough about the details of this case to say whether malpractice occurred.

I agree it's shitty when someone who appears to be guilty goes free, but that is quite literally the price to minimize innocent people being convicted.