That's an extremely key phrase. They don't like to lose on the big stage. Police and prosecutors, they don't like to lose on the big stage. So what if this goes on for a while, media frenzy continues and many in the public are very convinced he is guilty. If they don't like to lose and the public is watching strongly expecting a specific outcome, what could it cause them to do? Have police and prosecutors in other places and cases, due to this hubris, kept their focus on A even if evidence comes in suggesting B or C or D?
If the answers to these questions are what I believe they are, doesn't it clearly equal AH deserving the presumption he may be innocent regardless of how many troopers are seen taking many buckets of clothes and knickknacks out of AH's house?
Everyone will have their own opinion of what they think is going on, so I may be way off with my thoughts compared to yours but I think that the focus on AH is due to 2 things at the moment:
1. The fact that there is indeed sufficient
suspicion to warrant shaking him down and applying pressure, as they've been doing. There just seems to be too many "maybes" and what-ifs that seem to point directly at AH himself for them NOT to be extremely interested. Maybe it's just a sheer coincidence, but at this point in time I would expect most of the leads to be swarming around him. The finding of the body, the timeline of the murder within an hr or two, the proximity of the home, the ties with the girlfriend/sister, the
supposed destroying/tampering of evidence, the rental car(s).....all of this stuff would definitely point to starting with AH and going from there. I don't believe that they'll ignore other leads etc, but we also don't have how much of a potential picture they've put together to this point. They may have nothing and be fishing for anything at all, or they may have pieced together some items and are looking more closely at other aspects
2. The fact that there hasn't been any other major breakthroughs to take them elsewhere--at least as of this current moment (and also that we've heard about)
I entirely agree that we should view it as the fact that he's innocent until proven guilty. Our country uses an adversarial system that places the brunt of the evidence and proof solely on the prosecution to fully prove their case without any shred of doubt from those who will decide his fate (in this case a jury). Looking at it from a legal sense, absolutely...we should always give him the benefit of the doubt until proven otherwise.
In the court of public opinion however, it's going to be completely different. Ethics, guilt, "doing the right thing," answering to a higher power etc are all feelings that come into play and many have already decided his fate based on that alone. It's interesting to hear my wife's side (ethics, strong religious beliefs etc) vs my criminal justice side, because they are completely different on every level. Of course the media doesn't help either, as we've already concluded.
There are just so many different angles that we could literally talk about it 24/7 with everyone having good points with their respective sides. The only conclusion I've been guilty of drawing myself is that AH had made some poor choices in choosing his friends, actions, etc. I could be way off on that too, I'm just being honest that I think it's pretty much fact that he has indeed made some poor choices. I wouldn't ever consider him "guilty" though from a legal standpoint, and I don't have 1/10th of the knowledge that some here do who are actively working attorneys. I am just speaking from someone who majored in the field and is very interested and passionate about the subject of criminal justice, that's all.
