Yeah, again I agree, at least on Clear Lake case. The hubby certainly was not helping matters and they got involved in what some would say to be a cultish church. I think the shitbag husband got off scott-free as it's not illegal to be a shitbag.
I'm sure that I'm probably projecting much of my own personal angst and lack of confidence in the Houston judicial system into this thread.
Back in 2007 I served as a juror in a murder trial. Defendant had an excellent attorney by the name of Skip Cornelius and claimed self defense. The jury split down the middle during deliberation. I was on the half that said the case had not been proven beyond reasonable doubt. A mistrial is called. As I'm exiting the courtroom, I bump into the prosecutor and we get into a conversation about the case. Turns out tons of evidence was thrown out by the judge during pre-trial hearings. The guy was guilty as shit. Still bothers me to this day. Lesson learned: If you get the silver bracelets, STFU and get a good attorney.
Don't let it bother you. You called what you saw. Other people decided what you saw.
The flip side of the coin is things like the slew of terrorism convictions in the UK in the mid-70s, which all turned out to be horribly wrong. Google the Guilford 4, the Birmingham 6 and the Magwire 7. The worst part is, the "real killers" were left on the loose to kill again and again. A little judicial cold water on the prosecution's ardour would probably have saved lives.
One of the tenets of English law, on which much of the western world's law is based (except Louisiana, which is Napoleonic), is that it is better that 10 guilty men go free than one innocent man be convicted. It sucks to let the guilty off the hook, but it sucks more (at least 10 times more, apparently) to put one innocent in jail.
