3 ms·

If you have been given the guilty verdict, then you have been proven guilty. Subsequent DNA testing in this instance would be to exonerate this verdict. So inno

by yesco 2y ago

If you have been given the guilty verdict, then you have been proven guilty. Subsequent DNA testing in this instance would be to exonerate this verdict. So innocent until proven guilty, then once proven guilty, it becomes guilty until proven innocent via appeal. To your second point, if you classify the literal possession of the stolen items from the burglary as a suspicious coincidence, I'm not really sure what you actually consider evidence? This is pretty much the smoking gun here, we even have testimony that he sold the stolen laptop so it's not like they just magically appeared in his car without his knowledge... I do find it strange the county prosecutors are pushing back though, but that's where it ends really.

JumpCrisscross 2y ago
> is pretty much the smoking gun The evidence undeniably places him in proximity to the crime. But it doesn't prove he did it. It might have, had the cops not been so sloppy with the evidence as to mess up the fingerprints on the knife. But the point of a smoking gun is that it's smoking and it's the gun. Not random stuff that was also in the house when the gun was smoking.
- awb 2y ago
  Multiple witnesses say he confessed to the murder, including his girlfriend and fellow inmates with the later supposedly having non-public information of details of the crime
BrandoElFollito 2y ago
> it's not like they just magically appeared in his car without his knowledge... He build have bought it from the actual burglar for instance. Or keep it for him. I do not know about the case, lube in France and just saw the headlines here and there so I certainly do not have all the details. My point is that the fact that you have a stolen object does not necessarily mean you are the thief. It is a strong suspicion, sure, but we are taking about death sentence for murder.

3 ms·

If you have been given the guilty verdict, then you have been proven guilty. Subsequent DNA testing in this instance would be to exonerate this verdict. So inno

by yesco 2y ago

JumpCrisscross 2y ago
> is pretty much the smoking gun The evidence undeniably places him in proximity to the crime. But it doesn't prove he did it. It might have, had the cops not been so sloppy with the evidence as to mess up the fingerprints on the knife. But the point of a smoking gun is that it's smoking and it's the gun. Not random stuff that was also in the house when the gun was smoking.
- awb 2y ago
  Multiple witnesses say he confessed to the murder, including his girlfriend and fellow inmates with the later supposedly having non-public information of details of the crime
BrandoElFollito 2y ago
> it's not like they just magically appeared in his car without his knowledge... He build have bought it from the actual burglar for instance. Or keep it for him. I do not know about the case, lube in France and just saw the headlines here and there so I certainly do not have all the details. My point is that the fact that you have a stolen object does not necessarily mean you are the thief. It is a strong suspicion, sure, but we are taking about death sentence for murder.