There may never be perfect evidence to prove that Sebastian Burns and Atif Rafay murdered the Rafay family, but justice was served in this case; Burns and Rafay were approached with an “innocent until proven guilty” mindset, there wasn’t any excessive pressure, and Burns’ confession proved him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Burns and Rafay were approached by the police with an “innocent until proven guilty” mindset. The investigation of the two teens is not saying the police believed they were guilty, it is just standard procedure: the police investigate all witnesses at the crime scene. The police listened to and considered their alibi and were aware that people who had contact with Burns and Rafay during their alibi remembered seeing …show more content…
When an RCMP officer posed as a mobster, it was described that he started to have a close connection to Sebastian. As it was described in CBS’ “Perfectly Executed”, Sebastian didn’t seem to be intimidated at all, and when asked about whether he was guilty or not, he didn’t admit to anything, he mentioned how if the police found anything against him, he needed evidence to be destroyed. It seemed that he trusted the “mobster” and there was no part of this conversation that implied finding evidence, so Sebastian would have been pretty comfortable revealing …show more content…
People feel the verdict was unfair because they believed that the jury disregarded certain reasonable doubts in the case. During the beginning of the investigation, there were no traces of Burns’ and Rafay’s blood. During the trial, Burns said he felt pressured by the mobster to confess, which isn’t an ordinary feeling for a person to have in that situation. This is the same argument that Jimmy Miyoshi was being investigated by the police. Miyoshi had high stakes because if he hadn’t confessed to the police that Burns and Rafay had done it, he would’ve received a life sentence. Lastly, there was an excessive focus on the teens’ attitude during the trial. In Globe and Mail’s article “B.C. pair convicted in Rafay murder case” by Jane Armstrong, she uses words such as “hubris” and “arrogant” to describe the boys. She also noted that the jury allegedly came to “despise the defendants”. Viewers have a strong argument with this description because the jury and judge are not allowed to use the character of a person to convict them, as it can create bias and