Arrest in Malibu Creek shootings.

La Chivitawrote: Did any one of you talking about circumstantial evidence, cop ethics, so on and so forth read the original article that talks about the details in the case?? If not, read it and then comment. It's a long article: https://www.gq.com/story/unsolved-mystery-of-malibu-creek-murder 

First, the cops caught a lot of flak for not disclosing the incidents before the murder (some instances not even investigating them). The publicity affected the election for the top sheriff so as the article states, it created an urgency to 'solve' the case. There have been many documented instances in the past of scapegoating to 'solve' cases in many police departments. It happens. And I've met some really good cops and some really shady cops, so I'm not trying to throw cops under the bus by saying there are bad cops out there.

Secondly, the 'burden of proof' in a criminal trail is based on 'beyond a reasonable doubt.' If you have a criminal trail based on a lot of circumstantial evidence, it becomes more difficult to convince a jury.

https://www.pushkin.fm/show/lost-hills/

Podcast about the Malibu shootings

I’m disappointed the guy with the shirtless bathroom selfie is no longer with us.

FrankPSwrote:

Interesting theory :). Do you think prosecutors proceed on a case with no evidence against the fall guy?

Yes, as more than one overturned convictions show.