So, let me attempt to sum up the last few posts:  

Ronster and p_rushing think the courts refused to look at the evidence.  

Lucky2Last thinks there was no hard evidence, and that's why the cases were thrown out.  But he thinks there is a lot of circumstantial evidence.

Am I correct so far?

So, Ronster or p_rushing, I think it might be productive if you can cite a specific case where in your opinion a judge refused to look at the evidence, and then we can examine that particular case.

---