Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This were the only shred of DNA offered as evidence from a rusted pair of old pliers. Debated by defense expert witness.
If forensic evidence is not acceptable evidence, then the courts would demand a video of criminal acts in order to achieve a conviction. That's not realistic.
One of the problems with high profile cases is that once LE gets locked onto a suspect or person of interest, they will invariably hold on for dear, life like a pack of lions on a carcass.
True, not suggestive and typically the case. Anyone convicted of uncommitted crime knows this much.
If we're going to require facts, then we have to accept that on the day before Laci was "reported" missing, Scott told his sister in law that he was golfing on Dec 24 . Other than the convicted murderer, no one saw, or spoke to, Laci after Dec 23. On Dec 24, Scott phoned his mother in law claiming that his wife was "missing", and Laci's stepfather reported her missing to police.
It was too cold to go golfing, but it was not too cold to go fishing in a row boat on the Bay? That doesn't make sense. It also doesn't make sense that on Dec 24 Scott initially told people that he was golfing. How could he be so confused about what he did that day?
As I said, I remember that he revised his plans from what he told Amy the night before Xmas Eve.
You need to cite the rest of the alleged evidence to which you are referring. To whom and when and what Scott said, exactly.
Moreover, what doesn't make sense to one person means nothing.
Highly reliable inculpatory evidence is everything. And like your focus on Scott's alleged flight plans, you are, once again, focusing on another area of but corroborative evidence; i.e., misleading or false statements, 100,000 of which would prove nothing in a criminal trial.
My recommendation is to drop the buns and focus on some beef; i.e., inculpatory evidence that proves one of the four required elements of murder one: intent, planning, deliberation and malice aforethought.
True, not suggestive and typically the case. Anyone convicted of uncommitted crime knows this much.
In all honesty, anyone who has ever been the subject of an intensive investigation by LE and our crimetainment media would know this truth, whether they were indicted or convicted or just focused on by the media. For example, think the Eisenbergs (baby Sabrina) or the Ramseys (Jon Benet). They were never convicted in a court of law, yet their lives were ruined, too.
As I said, I remember that he revised his plans from what he told Amy the night before Xmas Eve.
You need to cite the rest of the alleged evidence to which you are referring. To whom and when and what Scott said, exactly.
Moreover, what doesn't make sense to one person means nothing.
Highly reliable inculpatory evidence is everything. And like your focus on Scott's alleged flight plans, you are, once again, focusing on another area of but corroborative evidence; i.e., misleading or false statements, 100,000 of which would prove nothing in a criminal trial.
My recommendation is to drop the buns and focus on some beef; i.e., inculpatory evidence that proves one of the four required elements of murder one: intent, planning, deliberation and malice aforethought.
To suggest that police cease to examine evidence after identifying a person of interest is to suggest that police have tunnel vision. That is the term that is commonly used to describe that sort of behaviour.
I neither said nor suggested that they (LE) should cease to examine evidence.
Look, you are not going to be able to extend my statements beyond what I actually said. Do yourself a favor and just quote me.
My statements don't mean what you might think I meant, they mean what I said, nothing more.
Even one is too many. New DNA technology advances as we post. To answer the question precisely, I don't know.
DNA technology may one day determine age of the hair found on Petersons pliers, exonerating and overturning his conviction.
DNA is not available in hair. However, it is available in the root of a hair. Unfortunately, the single hair that was found on the rusted needle-nose pliers did not have a root. So it would be hard to claim that it was yanked out of Laci's head by the pliers (just a thought).
DNA is not available in hair. However, it is available in the root of a hair. Unfortunately, the single hair that was found on the rusted needle-nose pliers did not have a root. So it would be hard to claim that it was yanked out of Laci's head by the pliers (just a thought).
Thanks for that addition..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
