this post was submitted on 14 Oct 2024
135 points (97.2% liked)

Creepy Wikipedia

3937 readers
18 users here now

A fediverse community for curating Wikipedia articles that are oddly fascinating, eerily unsettling, or make you shiver with fear and disgust

image

Guidelines:
  1. Follow the Code of Conduct

  2. Do NOT report posts YOU don't consider creepy

  3. Strictly Wikipedia submissions only

  4. Please follow the post naming convention: Wikipedia Article Title - Short Synopsis

  5. Tick the NSFW box for submissions with inappropriate thumbnails.

  6. Please refrain from any offensive language/profanities in the posts titles, unless necessary (e.g. it's in the original article's title).

Mandatory:

If you didn't find an article "creepy," you must announce it in the thread so everyone will know that you didn't find it creepy

image

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

They're still trying to clear their names. More frustrating than creepy, but deserving of a read.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 2 points 4 weeks ago (1 children)

That's a lot of information. But does it rise to beyond reasonable doubt?

Being seen in the area. Having mass market clothes, knives, and candles, and not having an alibi are all circumstantial.

Especially if the prosecution's theory is a modern day witch hunt?

Sure, they got caught doing a lot of lying. That does not mean they did a murder too.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 4 weeks ago (1 children)

I just like to present it since like a lot of the conversation revolves around, and I think most people, myself included, had their first exposure to the case through, Paradise Lost which is fr only one angle ya know?

Idk if I would've convicted them. I think there was a lot of stuff that wasn't clear on either side which isn't beyond a reasonable doubt

But I've also been on a couple juries and always voted not guilty so maybe that's a personal thing lol

[–] [email protected] 3 points 4 weeks ago

I would maybe add that bit. Because to me your post seemed like you were supporting their conviction, not just presenting facts.