Following the 9/11 attacks, a Wall Street Journal Reporter, Daniel Pearl, was murdered in 2002 while reporting on religious extremists in the Middle East. The man who was convicted of the murder, due to heavy international pressure resting on the Pakistani courts, now had his conviction overturned.
The whole legal process of this case was mess. All the evidence used to convict the man was circumstantial and included many missing links that if filled would have provided sound evidence. The man convicted was a known extremist at the time, and was helping Pearl meet with religious leaders in the region. He was also the last person seen with Pearl before Pearl's disappearance. That being said, any number of things could have happened up until Pearl was kidnapped and murdered, so just being seen with him doesn't provide enough evidence in the courts. At the time though, due to heavy pressure as well as having lots of evidence similar to that, the Pakistani courts made the conviction.
The man had his sentence shortened from death to 7 years, after the Pakistani Court listened to his appeal and ruled there was insufficient evidence. This man could have very well been the man who murdered Pearl, but do to the failure of the prosecution to investigate thoroughly there will never be justice for Daniel Pearl.
While it's unfortunate that Pearl's murder was never solved, circumstantial evidence shouldn't have been enough to sentence that man to life in prison. Circumstantial evidence creates plenty of reasonable doubt, something that should prevent a conviction. However, it seems that the investigation wasn't strong which makes me wonder if they could reopen the case and try to solve it again.
ReplyDelete