The two suspects....

[mike777]

Here in the usa:

 

 

A criminal trial is neither a "whodunit" nor a "multiple choice test". It is not even a criminal "investigation" to determine who among various possible suspects might be responsible for a terrible tragedy. In a murder trial, the state, with all of its power, accuses an individual of being the perpetrator of a dastardly act against a victim. The state must prove that accusation by admissible evidence and beyond a reasonable doubt. Even if it is "likely" or "probable" that this defendant committed the murder, he must be acquitted, because neither "likely" nor "probable" satisfies the daunting standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Accordingly, a legally proper result -- acquittal in such a case -- may not be the same as a morally just result. In such a case, justice has not been done to the victim, but the law has prevailed.

 

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alan-dershowitz/the-criminal-trial-is-not_b_893207.html

[barmar]

If innocent until proven guilty is really in force there may be some problems down the pike as in the news conference they were saying things like, "the citizens of Boston can breathe a sigh of relief now." There wasn't a shred of suggestion that the kid is innocent or even that someone else might have been involved.

The President specifically said last night that law enforcement is going to keep investigating, in part to determine if there were any more people involved.

 

But the general rule is that you can't wait for a verdict before "breathing a sigh of relief". That could be months or years away, are we supposed to stay on high alert until then? A suspect in custody is not proof of guilt, but it implies a reasonable expectation that you have the perpetrator, and that's good enough for the public to go about their lives.