RSBM/BBM
If this was directed at my original post, it is not what I meant. I was simply opining that the presence of someone else connected to the crime does not logically clear the defendant so long as his DNA is on the murder weapon.
IMO showing an alt suspect does not really help the defence in this case. Unless they can get the DNA tossed, we know without a shadow of a doubt BK handled the murder weapon.
BBM
I don't recall reading your post that was on this topic (and I don't see what you apparently bolded [BBM] in my post. So I can't address that either.)
My previous comments regarding WS posts on this topic referenced those recently linked by
@iamshadow21. None were yours. So no, I wasn't directing my comments at your original post.
At this point, we do not know all the evidence that will be admitted and presented at trial. We also don't know what challenges the defense will raise in cross examination. So judging how jurors will view "the evidence" is largely impossible. But I am pretty sure I'd be conflicted as a juror IF 1) evidence showed BK's DNA on the
knife sheath (that's obviously
NOT "the murder weapon"...the murder weapon hasn't been found yet and probably won't be IMO.) And yet, 2) there was other unidentified male DNA in the
relative vicinity of at least one body (if that's where it was.)
Motive doesn't have to be shown for murder and it may not be possible for "normal" people to understand some killers' motives anyway. But as a juror for this case,
to be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt I'd want to have an understanding of what happened (as I have when I've been an actual juror.) "Mystery" DNA wouldn't help my understanding unless it was found in a place clearly disconnected from the crime. (But as I posted earlier, why would LE swab in clearly disconnected areas?) And while we may talk freely on WS about it being a "party house," I'm not sure how far the state would want to go to convince jurors the deceased victims were "party girls" so lots of different male DNA would be expected to be floating around. People DO victim-blame-- there are all kinds of reasons that happens. Reasons include the psychological need to believe in a "just world," attribution errors, and gender bias/stereotyping. Doing anything to point jurors in that direction wouldn't be good.
I find it impossible to believe that BK had an accomplice of any sort - if ever there was a loner he is it.
BK may very well be an extreme loner. But IMO we think we know that 1) because we've studied everything we can get our hands on about BK for many months-- some was reliable info, some not. (Clearly, as always happens in high-profile cases, some who spoke up were just looking for their 15 minutes of fame.) And 2) our knowledge of BK involves purported "facts" and character evidence that won't be part of the court case anyway. So I wouldn't count on jurors necessarily having the same view as those on WS, assuming jurors don't come in with their minds already made up. But even if they did think he was a loner, there have been high-profile pairs of conspiring criminals where one of the two had a "loner personna" and background. So if I was a juror, before I made up my mind about guilt I'd still want the unknown sources of DNA to be addressed. And that can't be done, at least not logically IMO, by pointing to BK's alleged guilt.
MOO