http://www.wral.com/news/local/video/13948679/This is the girl they were found guilty of killing. Two black guys and black girl was the victim. Now they are not guilty I suppose
Posted on 09/06/2014 5:36:11 AM PDT by exhaustguy
Like I said, it proves the person who left it was there, it does not prove that no one else was there.
http://www.wral.com/news/local/video/13948679/This is the girl they were found guilty of killing. Two black guys and black girl was the victim. Now they are not guilty I suppose
Like I said, it proves the person who left it was there, it does not prove that no one else was there.So... If the victim says there was only a single bad guy AND the rape-kit captures an unquestionably adequate DNA sample that could have only been left by the as yet unidentified bad guy AND that DNA fully excludes me as a suspect -- you maintain that the DNA comparison does NOT prove I am innocent (or "not guilty" if you prefer)?
Given that simple, unfortunately rather common example, do you still maintain that DNA can not prove innocence?
Absolutely, DNA cannot prove innocence. perhaps the victim didnt see the 2nd perp, and for that matter, it is IMPOSSIBLE to prove a negative.
perhaps the victim didnt see the 2nd perpOh my goodness! With "flailing logic" that desperate, you are either a shyster lawyer, or you are cut from the same cloth!
DNA proves innocence on such a regular basis, that it is not even arguable! If there is only a single perpetrator, and ONLY COULD HAVE BEEN a single perpetrator, and the DNA is clearly a mis-match, then innocence is proven beyond all reasonable doubt and it *cannot* lie. That sort of case is *THE* most common criminal investigation resolved by DNA comparison. Period. It is as assured as arguing the sky is blue or the grass is green!
Stubborn adherence to such an obvious falsehood is *comical*. That I was so easily able to get you to publicly demonstrate it is hilarious! Enjoy that fantasy world you've constructed around you...
Does the absence of finger prints prove innocence? NO, it doesnt, and DNA and finger prints are basically the same, they are both something left behind by the perp. Just because it is much harder not to leave DNA than finger prints, does not mean that it cannot happen.
We aren’t talking about the absence of *anything*. Take one of the most common cases resolved by DNA: Rape.
The victim states the perp is not familiar to her. The victim states there was only a single perp and there is no evidence to the contrary - nor does there *need* to be. The rape-kit collects *ample* viable DNA that could *only* have come from the perp — unless you want to argue that the woman somehow magically produced semen bearing a single, male DNA profile.
If there are two potential suspects matching the physical description given by the victim and the DNA fully and definitively excludes one of them and matches the other — You are *STILL* arguing that innocence was not proven beyond all reasonable doubt for the suspect *excluded* by DNA comparison?
I’m now looking forward to your next feeble, idiotic attempt at sticking to your utterly destroyed argument that DNA can’t prove innocence. Let’s hear it...
It takes an idiot to believe that simply because someone left no evidence, that he could not have been there.
I would never go to the police station to answer a few questions; especially if I was innocent. They don't care if you are innocent; they just want a conviction. Your innocence is not that important to too many cops and prosecutors.
Even with a lawyer, I would insist that any questions be pt in writing with at least a few days to answer. If they want to ask a few questions in the presence of my attorney, that meeting would happen at my lawyers office or with my lawyer at a very nice restaurant with the cops paying.
That is an ignorant comment. In this case, the prosecutor and cops were corrupt. This is why that while I am theoretically in favor of the death penalty, I would NEVER vote for it without DNA evidence because you can't trust cops and prosecutors.
In recent federal cases, $1 million/year seems to be the going rate. In state courts, it varies widely.
So trayvon would be proven innocent by the DNA evidence?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.