Generally I do watch Dateline but missed it last night.

The last bit of it. Very sad.

Are you talking about the one where the son was charged with the murder of his parents??

Pretty sure he did it, they just needed more evidence. I didn't understand why they couldn't present the lie detectors that he failed?

There was no evidence that the son murdered his parents. NONE. Everyone who knows him said he had a wonderful relationship with his parents. Yes, they argued. But family and staff at the business they ran said it was all normal. As to his demeanor when he heard his parents were dead, we all deal with grief differently. When my ex's father died, the family got together and played 21 and drank. Just another Friday night in their home. Another inlaw asked me if someone really died, because of all the laughing and joking that was going on.

Jury's are instructed in what they can and can't consider when making their final verdict. If they have even a shred of doubt that the accused may be innocent, they have to go with that. They said his parents put up a fight. The son didn't have a scratch on him the next day. He should have had *something* on him.

lie detectors are not admissable in court. There are way too many false positives and false negatives. They explained that in the show.

I think he was guilty~~~this is why I should never be on a jury~~~~~~~it was quite enough evidence for me

I guess I missed the close loving son part. I got the argueing, the Dad saying he wasn't going to lose his home over him, the threats to his Uncle and on and on..
I sure must have missed something.

The lady at the bank said no money was taken by the son upon cross examination. The people who work for them all said they all argued all the time, yet they were all a very close family. How did you miss that? And threats mean nothing. I once said I would kill a girl if she slept with my ex husband. She's still very much alive. It was an expression.

The man's family said he could never hurt anyone. THEY believed in him and continue to believe in him. They know him better than anyone else. And we didn't hear ALL the facts. Only what was edited into the show.

I think he got away with murder and his wife lied. The mother casually walked out eating a cookie, because she knew it was her son and then ran to help her husband. It's good I wasn't on the jury.

"If they have even a shred of doubt that the accused may be innocent, they have to go with that."
Maybe that's true in Canada but that's not how it works in the United States. In the US judicial system the standard is guilty "beyond a reasonable doubt", and *not* beyond a shadow of a doubt. But here too polygraphs are not admissible in court. I don't totally agree with it, but that's the way it is.

I used to watch Dateline but haven't for a long time. The quality of the reporting went downhill so much after they got the "to catch a predator" fetish and got caught up in sensationalism.

So who did kill the parents? I believe it was him, just not enough evidence to convince a jury. I was surprised they came back with a not guilty verdict.

Linda~

""If they have even a shred of doubt that the accused may be innocent, they have to go with that."
Maybe that's true in Canada but that's not how it works in the United States. In the US judicial system the standard is guilty "beyond a reasonable doubt", and *not* beyond a shadow of a doubt. But here too polygraphs are not admissible in court. I don't totally agree with it, but that's the way it is. "

If that were true, OJ Simpson would have been convicted of his wifes murder along with her friend. "Beyond a reasonable doubt" means, if you have any doubts that he may be guilty, you have to go with not guilty. And that's how OJ was 'proven' innocent. And why this man was too. Only in OJ's case, there was a ton of proof he murdered two people. I don't know what that jury was thinking. Leather SHRINKS when it gets saturated with liquid. Of course the glove didn't fit! Twelve people missed that?

Anyways, back to this case. If I were on the jury, I would have aquitted him too.

'Beyond a reasonable doubt" means, if you have any doubts that he may be guilty, you have to go with not guilty."

That is not what Reasonable doubt means.

"The term connotes that evidence establishes a particular point to a moral certainty and that it is beyond dispute that any reasonable alternative is possible. It does not mean that no doubt exists as to the accused's guilt, but only that no Reasonable Doubt is possible from the evidence presented."

I think they did that and can't believe he got away with it.

Here is a link that might be useful: Beyond a REASONABLE doubt

Yes, I agree with the above posters...Dateline has a terrible record of reporting the facts. It left us with so many questions. What about the friend Dale Nelson? He was a weirdo in my estimation. Why tatoo himself? Why put chocolate syrup on a gas line as a joke when he knew his best friend was a clean freak? Why have a citation on his car about his friend? Just because he past the lie detector he was excused. As I watched the show...he became more suspicious to me then anyone....He is the only one who said Ron, Sr...had ##!!!@@ things to say about the son. This was poor reporting and the very poor police work IMHO! They should have had a mistrial.