“I think it is questionable as to wther this guy killed her.”
The evidence is compelling about the illegal’s guilt. The jury’s conclusion is strong evidence about his guilt.
Another inmate testifying that he killed her is hardly “compelling evidence”. In fact, there was no evidence at all that I have heard.
No eyewitnesses, no DNA, nothing. I would have agreed but there is no evidence at all.
Juries get it wrong sometimes. Google OJ Simpson.
Having served on several military court martial panels my instinct says Ingmar’s jury rendered the verdict they believed to be correct—that is it was based on the evidence presented.
People tend to take very seriously finding someone guilty of a capital crime. Moreover, the jury selection process tends to favor the defense.
That said, it does not mean Condit was not complicit in the murder. And it in no way absolves him of taking advantage of his position to seduce a young women that was never going to be his wife. Condit was and is a first class dirt bag.