>...but at the end of the day, they found no wrong doing.
>
>So, if a murderer who confesses to the crime and is seen committing it by eye witnesses is let off on a technicality, he is found not guilty. Does that mean that be did not commit the crime?

There are plenty of examples of supposed murders who 'confessed' to a crime that they didn't commit - along with an untold number of examples of faulty eye witness accounts. And what exactly are you meaning by a technicality? You mean like obtaining the confession in an illegal manner? Or a D.A. supporting perjury from a lying eye witness? Happens all the time Marcia - and yeah plenty of examples where the accused was actually innocent. You're asking an unrelated question that has no single answer - it has to be answered on a case by case basis.

And in case you've never looked into it - eye witness accounts are often very poor 'evidence'
Read this from Scientific America http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/do-the-eyes-have-it/
or this from the Stanford Journal of Legal Studies https://agora.stanford.edu/sjls/Issue%20One/fisher&tversky.htm
...or any of the other zillion studies on this subject.

http://www.innocenceproject.org/

I believe the number is up to 344 now (and counting) - obviously there are a LOT MORE as these are just the ones from The Innocence Project, and have been a LOT MORE in the past we'll never hear about because the accused has already died in prison.