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.
Mark A. Norwood
[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.]