Post by cami on Dec 23, 2011 8:28:52 GMT -5
"The State got a conviction on the original trial evidence which including over 100 dna tests of the evidence. Why should the state voluntarily decide to subject evidence to up-to-date dna testing not available in 1996 when they got a conviction? That makes absolutely no sense."
My reply is real simple. This new testing could PROVE beyond all doubt as to Darlie's innocense. Now, if you don't want the R|ACTUAL truth, just someone to take the fall for the murders, then you would be correct. But, that would mean the real killer(s) is/are still out there.l Is that what you want? Someone to be executed for a crime they may not have committed just to close a case? I say, FIND the TRUTH tregardless of what it takes. You obviously are not too concerned with the truth, but only the verdict of the first trial. Did you ever think the verdict in the first trial to be the wrong verdict? Personally, I don't think so.
I have been present at the minimum of 3 trials in which at least one witness for the prosecution has presented false evidence on the stand. These testimonies were proven false on the basis of scientific evidence that found that proved there testimony is IMPOSSIBLE to substantiate. That means ther was NO WAY their testimonies could be correct, unless the science used to prove their statements to be false could be proven to be inaccurate. Which is NOT the case. The science held up, and the people were found to be innocent. When you have the prosecution presenting evidence that is later to be proven false ( not circumstantial proof, but 99.99% solid proof that the events as presented by these individuals is false), it makes 9it hard to believe the prosecutions entire case.
Well I'm not American but does not your law say "beyond a reasonable doubt" not beyond all doubt. This case is solved and closed. Should we open every solved case and subject it to new dna testing?
That's the difference here. This conviction has been upheld for 15 years now through every appeals court. Don't you think that if there was anything dodgey going on it would have been found by now?
Yes, I believe the jury's verdict because there is evidence to back it up. The science has backed up this conviction. No one has presented any false evidence that has later been ruled false by the court. I've read every single court document there is to do with this trial. There is no way anyone but Darlie committed the murders.
Again and again and again you refer to those prints and the fact that Cron capitulated to the defence. Absolutely not true, Cron has never ever stated those prints were a child's and he would not cave in on something he knew to be fact. If you really knew the blood evidence in this case Luch, you would be able to see those prints are Darlie's and not some unknown intruders.