what I don't understated is how there was not 1 not 2, not 3 not 4 not 5...trials and so where does doble jeperdey come into play here? I have every reason to beleve he did it don't get me wrong but that dous not mean that you use the constaution as tolet paper in the prosess of serving justice! I mean doesn't a misstrial mean he was found inacent?
Unfortunately. it is not double jeopardy because it is 2 separate jurisdictions.The Military rarely plays this hand but it is there if they so chose. A mistrial not does not mean the person is found innocent, but rather the state has either failed to meet their burden of proof or some other errors have occurred on their behalf. They then have the options of a retrial. Hope this helps.
Double Jeopardy is only when a defendant is found "NOT GUILTY" he had a HUNG JURY thus can be tried again, and again, and again until he is found GUILTY or NOT GUILTY. A mistrial is a nice way of getting to do it over again.
Double Jeopardy only applies when a verdict is found not when there is a hung jury or mistrial. He has to be found not guilty first and then they cannot retry him.
This program about convicting a man of murder without any evidence is scary.
But the comments of the people here at this site are even scarier. Most people think that "he did it" just because "who else had a motive?!"
I wonder how many tens of thousands of innocent people are rotting in jail because their jury consisted of total illogical morons who don't believe that a person's guilt has to prove beyond reasonable doubt.
It is shocking to see prejudice in our legal system against spouses of the victims. Whenever a person is killed at their home, the police immediately assume that the "husband did it" and don't even look for other suspects.
It is equally shocking to see how the prosecutors see nothing wrong in letting the victim's family to brainwash the children into changing their recollection of the crime and to suddenly deciding that the shooter "sounded like the husband, only in a different, deeper voice".
It is horrifying that there was not a shred of evidence (except for a piece of glass from a different uniform that the forensic experts think cannot be completely ruled out as coming from the door), and yet a man was convicted and will spend his life in prison.
Who said that it's better to let 100 criminals go free than to convict 1 innocent man? Whoever said this, should himself be thrown in prison with no evidence of guilt.
I am among the totally illogical morons who believes Burke is guilty. Burke had the means, motive, and opportunity to commit the crime. VLADRUTENBURG will likely argue that Burke's disappearance for hours in the middle of the night to look at trucks takes away the opportunity for him to commit the crime (searching for trucks in the middle of the night is totally logical). And there is no motive since he loved his wife and she was not divorcing him. And he did not have the means, although his father-in-law gave him a 9 mm pistol that was likely used to kill the victims.
Listen everyone is entitled to their opinion and to express how they feel. Just as you are. Now I find your opinion scary in what have just written. A control freak ex-husband to be who asks where everyone sleeps in a house that has nothing to do with him. No that kind of evidence is just frightening and a son that convicts his own father and you say that he is an innocent man. I am glad I do not know you nor do I ever want to if your opinion is to set the guilty free.
Not the first military man that has killed his wife. You got two immature people that should have never gotten married.m What is unfortunate is is that these wives expect these guys to come back from the Middle East just as they were before they went overseas. When you constantly kill people and hear bombs go off, that effects the psyche. When these husbands return home, they see their families as the enemy when confronted.
I didn't even see the hole story I knew that he did it....and thank God for the court-martial. Poor children will grow up to a memory of that tragic night.
The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. By using this Web site you agree to accept our Terms of Service. Click here to read the Rules of Engagement.
Reply to Comment The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. By using this Web site you agree to accept our Terms of Service. Click here to read the Rules of Engagement.
But the comments of the people here at this site are even scarier. Most people think that "he did it" just because "who else had a motive?!"
I wonder how many tens of thousands of innocent people are rotting in jail because their jury consisted of total illogical morons who don't believe that a person's guilt has to prove beyond reasonable doubt.
It is shocking to see prejudice in our legal system against spouses of the victims. Whenever a person is killed at their home, the police immediately assume that the "husband did it" and don't even look for other suspects.
It is equally shocking to see how the prosecutors see nothing wrong in letting the victim's family to brainwash the children into changing their recollection of the crime and to suddenly deciding that the shooter "sounded like the husband, only in a different, deeper voice".
It is horrifying that there was not a shred of evidence (except for a piece of glass from a different uniform that the forensic experts think cannot be completely ruled out as coming from the door), and yet a man was convicted and will spend his life in prison.
Who said that it's better to let 100 criminals go free than to convict 1 innocent man? Whoever said this, should himself be thrown in prison with no evidence of guilt.
Get real!