The message that "you never know" is repeatedly used in sports, even when it seems apparent that the end result is foreordained. Thus, toss out Zambrano and a bunch of rookies against the best of the Astros starting rotation, the sentiment is that you will probably win a game, maybe two -- the Astros after all have a thin line-up that repeatedly fails their starting rotation. But, a sweep? One also did not expect the Phillies to win three straight vs. the Mets, especially with two blowouts and two shutouts (not the same games). And so on, down to the 2004 playoffs. This also applies writ small, certain in game decisions (including running hard, perhaps a fielder will slip-up) that might rarely lead to any benefits, but ultimately do enough times to count. But, few enough times that repeated reminders are useful.
So is the case in criminal justice. Thus, everyone knew the Ramseys were guilty. Right? But, a short time after the mother's death (though she did know of a likely break in the case at the end of her life), someone confessed. Thus, all that talk about reasonable doubt and all that jazz is rather important. This hit home nearby as well. A horrible crime, the vicious attack on a white woman jogger (who did not remember the attack), was thought to have been done by a group of black teens. There were confessions. But, years after, we find out this was not the case -- someone else was to blame for the attack, even if the teens were involved in harassment of park dwellers and so forth. [The wrongly accused often are not angels, but this is different from being devils.] And, other problematic "confessions" is on the record as well. This is sort of why we make darn sure that confessions were not coerced and so forth. There are slip-ups.
In both cases, the new evidence came out years after the original crimes, the public moving to new horrors. The reopening of the Central Park Jogger Case led to new controversy, especially since the prosecution was loathe to admit they f-ed up, but it was much less blanket coverage than the original. Sort of how those corrections are shoved into the paper, perhaps in a catchall page 2 column along with reminders that when they said "John Clark," they meant "Paul Lark" or something -- or, a real one, in which Frank Rich corrected where Bush bought lemonade or something. We shall see how this Ramsey case goes, but again, the mother is dead.
And, the next time some iffy situation comes up, will we be more careful? Or, just say "well, sure, that was a mistake, but we are right most of the time." Thus, someone answering my post (see "and also" link from yesterday) on aggressive recruiting put forth a wonder of statistical analysis to show that it really is just a tiny number of people. Same here really -- loads of guilty people, only a relative few Ramseys. And, you cannot let the chance of error to totally inhibit the attempt to catch criminals. But, those errors are useful reminders, to the detriment of those who serve as lessons,* of why we have so many protections before we deprive people of liberty. Why we should retain that bit of doubt, to not be soooo sure all the time. This includes public opinion and trusting what one reads in the paper.
After all, apparently there is going to be eleven planets now -- one between Mars and Jupiter ("Ceres") and one beyond Pluto, the latter to be named "Xena." Seriously. Actually, the planetary status, so to speak, of Pluto has been controversial for years. It was confusing enough when Pluto was closer to the Sun than Neptune for a few years, but many also noted Pluto was really something of a joke as a planet. And, then other planetoid objects were found beyond Neptune as well as another one much closer to the Sun, which some wanted to call an asteroid. After all, we already have mnemonics to remember the nine planets, and tossing in more would be confusing. What is next? No more Roy G. Biv. to remember the color spectrum?
If two more planets will be added, changing our vision of the solar system, is the Ramsey's innocence really so hard to imagine as well? Well, let's not assume anything ... that would ruin the point of this post, I guess.
---
* Such people make us uncomfortable, especially when we again are not fully taking into consideration the possibility of error. Sure sure, how unfortunate, but we really aren't thinking of you. Please go away ... you are making it harder to not worry about people tossed in prison and stuff. They aren't really like us or anything, and you are confusing things. And, you are all so emotional. Sheesh.