OldLadyBlues
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jul 31, 2018
- Messages
- 550
- Reaction score
- 6,432
Who knows: they may have too much DNA. To me, the question about DNA is not as important without the rest of the puzzle pieces. Unless the DNA was found and collected in a manner that absolutely links the donor with the actual crime (I'm not going into details), collecting DNA in this case is simply circumstantial.
Even the worst public defender can set a defense of "Your Honor, my client took a leak in the woods an hour before this crime and had nothing to do with this". People tend to think that DNA makes or breaks a case but it's just another tool to build a case, not prove guilt or innocence.
Perhaps I didnt say it correctly but you did. DNA IS only a tool. And just like any other piece of evidence, it provides a lead....not guilt OR innocence.
IMHO