I don't have any data to back this up, but I imagine in almost every case where someone is convicted of murder and sentenced to 25 years in prison, there is actual evidence that a murder occurred.
I don't necessarily have a problem with circumstantial evidence, I just think that this is a very harsh sentence when there is no real evidence that anyone was killed.
It is damning circumstantial evidence, for sure. But only circumstantial, that is troubling (but there is precedence for convictions on circumstantial evidence of course).
I don't necessarily have a problem with circumstantial evidence, I just think that this is a very harsh sentence when there is no real evidence that anyone was killed.