[ Home | Contents | Search | Post | Reply | Next | Previous | Up ]
From: charlie
Date: 8/30/03
Time: 10:13:48 AM
Remote Name: 209.240.198.60
A current news article in AP and on www.worldnetdaily.com.
Seems DA's want to have it Both ways.
They don't want DNA to exonerate people in prison for crimes like rape, etc. if there is other evidence against them--like an eye-witness account.
One case where the DNA did not match but the victim claims the person is guilty is one example.
Now, if the person is convicted BY DNA and the victim says they can't ID the victim, that is OK. But if the DNA doesn't match and the victim ID's the person (eye-witness accounts are notoriously wrong) they should be able to convict the person anyway or keep them in jail.
What? The person raped her using someone else's semen? I don't think so.
Barry Scheck is getting involved in this. Of course.
They want DNA to convict but not exonerate.
NOw if the victim had sex with someone and then was raped by a person using a condom then perhaps ok but they don't say that.
I can understand it if it is even inconclusive and you have a positive ID but not this.
More evidence that the DA's will NEVER EVER admit that they are wrong.
charlie