[NatureGirl]

police can "flake" evidence that'll be credible to other professionals

There was testimony today from one witness about certain "changes in procedure" for this case. There had to be meetings about these "changes". Why? Why couldn't the case be investigated just as it would be for any other missing/murdered victim?

Yes, there appears to have been an awful lot of "bungling" by fully-trained professionals. Actually, let me restate that - "bungling" by the LE. From what I have gathered here over the past few days, the actual technical people (DNA experts, fingerprint experts, etc) really know what they're talking about. But they are third-party people. The evidence is sent to their lab from the LEs, and they test it. They don't gather evidence, they don't have access to the crime scene(s), they don't ask questions.

[Southflanknorthpawsis]

Big huge ditto to your post #555 !!!

[185JHP]

You only need a few people to run a frame - it can be completely bogus - and it looks good, because the people doing it know all the protocols. BTW for others, "flaking" comes from a term for planting evidence - the "snowflake" just falls on your overcoat...

[cynicalman]

Actually, let me restate that - "bungling" by the LE.

worked in OJ case--will not work a 2nd time

[truth_seeker]

There was testimony today from one witness about certain "changes in procedure" for this case. There had to be meetings about these "changes". Why? Why couldn't the case be investigated just as it would be for any other missing/murdered victim?

I see nothing sinister about this. It is a big case. Large volume of evidence. Large number of staffers involved.

In my non-LE enforcement professional career, a boss would kick-off an event of similar magnitude, because of the importance. Get things right. Follow procedures, and establish new ones where necessary.

My take on the testimony of the LE and forensic people: They came across as well prepared professionals.

For posters constantly figuring that LE went straight to DW: Why did they wait nearly three weeks to arrest him, if they rushed to judgement?

How do I come to this position? It is called probability. It seems entirely possible that one or a few of the pieces of evidence could point to DW, by coincidence. It is statistically highly improbable that so many would point to him.

I am not as confident that the jury will see it this way. The evidence against OJ was stronger than against DW; a stupid jury had what was for them "reasonable doubt."

"Reasonable" is not the same as "none whatsoever."