The metric for criminal convictions in the US is "beyond a reasonable doubt". They proved it beyond a reasonable doubt to all 12 people on the jury.
Gotcha. So every rapist can walk free if we don't have hi-def video of them committing the crime.
As the other commenter said, we have legal standards. They have to prove the crime was committed "beyond a reasonable doubt" and prove that to a jury of the defendant's peers. To all of them, if even a single person disagrees they do get to go free. In other words, almost everything is stacked in defense of a person accused of commiting a crime, to make sure as few Innocent people as possible are incarcerated. Our justice system isn't perfect, but if you're convicted of a crime off the testimony of multiple witnesses, you probably did it.
Masterson is probably guilty, but your comment gives a lot of undeserved credit to the American justice system.
Testimony is evidence. It's the most common type of evidence. For much of history it was the only evidence, and sometimes it still is the only evidence. Juries are still able to weigh that evidence and determine guilt. It's not perfect, but no human systems are.
thanks for using Leebra!
go to feed...
How did they prove he raped them? Honestly, 30 years is a lot of time. I assume they had video footage, multiple eye witnesses maybe some DNA tests?
save