To be fair, it's difficult to present sufficient evidence for a criminal case after 20 years, and the requirements for conviction/judgement differ dramatically. If I am not mistaken, criminal cases require "beyond reasonable doubt," while civil only asks for "preponderance of evidence."
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
That's probably true, but it does seem rather suspect. I'm not really invested one way or the other. He's innocent until proven guilty, but if he is guilty, then so be it.