[TwoBit]

That hardly convinces me he is innocent.

My problem with Serial is that people listened to it and concluded some travesty of justice occurred. But the other side doesn't get to tell their side. Whenever you hear just one side of the story, you can be sure that the truth is significantly different.

[tallanvor]

Yes, but the problem is whether or not the prosecution's case would have been convincing enough if they had turned over all evidence like they were supposed to.

Our justice system is supposed to require a high enough burden of proof that we don't convict innocent people, even if that means some guilty people aren't convicted as a result. Unfortunately, there have been, and still are, corrupt prosecutors out there that are more concerned with always getting a conviction whether or not there's enough evidence to prove the defendant is guilty.

[albinofrenchy]

The point of a criminal trial isn't to convince anyone someone is innocent. Innocence is presumed.

I'm pretty sure he did it. But the state has an obligation here to ensure a fair trial and that's what they are doing.

[vincentkriek]

Even the podcast states at the end that his innocence is far from proven, but that it's not clear that he is guilty. This is another perfect case of reasonable doubt, there is not enough evidence to convict.

This would make for a great case to see what the public opinion would be if he were to be released from prison, only later to have found out that he really did it. Reasonable doubt is tricky, it will let criminals off the hook because the police can not make a proper case.