Letters are posted as we receive them during the week, and before they are printed in the paper, so check back frequently to see new letters. If you'd like to send a letter to the editor, use this postmarks submission form, or email your letter directly to mail@austinchronicle.com. Thanks for your patience.

Dear Editor,
    One of the hardest things in the world a person is confronted with in life, is proving you did not do something three decades ago. What kind of alibi can a person substantiate their innocence, when they are accused of a crime that took place back then? It's almost virtually impossible. Circumstantial evidence is evidence that insinuates a person's guilt in a court of the law. And I must point out that circumstantial evidence is not conclusive evidence by far.
    Beyond a reasonable doubt is a phrase used to refer to the level of certainty. This should be required of a honest and conscientious juror before considering a verdict in a trial. A juror seeking the truth should have the highest degree of proof of guilt, before convicting a person of a crime.

   [Editor's note: Mark Norwood is serving a life sentence for the 1986 murder of Christine Morton. He is currently on trial for the 1988 murder of Debra Baker.]

Dear Editor,
    Thank you for your very well-written article "Spoilers and Dreamers" [News, Sept. 16]. I appreciate having voters informed of their choices, considering the Commission on Presidential Debates opposes this notion.
    Only one quibble with your article: My mission was not "to overtly stick it to the Republicans." I am an equal opportunity offender. Just ask Solomon Ortiz, Valinda Bolton, and Karen Huber.