Didn't they find fingerprints belonging to the son on the girl? All those forensic people were at the crime scene. If so, why did the son get off? Wouldn't fingerprints(and the golf ball) be the stronger evidence of guilt than what they found on the other guy?
shareThe detectives at the crime scene mentioned that a lot of evidence would've been washed away because it had rained between when the girl was murdered and when her body was discovered.
So all the police had was Do-Joon's golf ball and an eyewitness who put Do-Joon at the scene of the crime but didn't actually see him commit the crime. They also had Do-Joon's confession, but they would've known it might not hold up in court since it was well-known that Do-Joon had a childlike mind and could be talked into confessing to anything.
On the other hand, they've got an escaped asylum inmate with the murdered girl's blood on his clothes. That would've seemed like much stronger evidence to present to a jury. (Of course, the police didn't know about the murdered girl's history of daily nosebleeds.)
That's a very good point.
share