Quote: Originally Posted by Tonington
The jury was only weighing the evidence they were presented. You want to fault them for not knowing what they don't know? New evidence is what proved innocence. You want to imprison people who had no intent to do harm. That's mighty dickish of you. If there is fraud, then that is a different matter altogether.
Yep, I spoke a little too quickly on that. Actually I saw a documentary on that case and have done some reading. The main flaw in the entire trial that I discerned was one witness, the judge disallowed. At the exact time the girl was murdered and at a location a considerable distance away Milgaard stopped at a store to buy smokes (the proprietor could attest to the time because Milgaard was outside the store when he opened in the morning) and was prepared to testify. Possibly the jury was partly to blame because they obviously didn't give enough weight to this important fact, but then I don't know for sure if the jury was apprised of it. The prosecutor obviously knew. So the judged and prosecutor should bare the brunt of the blame.