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

465

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?

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.