[Smokin' Joe]

You don't incarcerate someone for life because they are "most likely the actual murderer". You prove they are first. If you don't, the presumption of innocence kicks in.

If guilty, I have full faith that they ultimately will face a higher Judge.

Or would you do away with "Innocent until proven guilty" or the standard of "reasonable doubt"?

If so, you are more of a threat to people far and wide in this country than some chick who has been found not guilty of murdering her child.

What is this, lynch mob night?

[ari-freedom]

There’s plenty of circumstantial evidence. There is no such thing as absolute proof in the mathematical sense so you will always have to go with what is most likely.