don't cut and run yet steve, i'm just warming up
Conclusive DNA evidence is infallible
nope. dna evidence can be conclusive but it never can be infallible.
Robert Hayes, 35
Convicted 1991; released 1997
THE CRIME: A Broward County jury convicted Hayes, a groom at the Pompano Harness Track, of the 1990 rape and strangling death of fellow groom Pamela Albertson. Prosecutors introduced DNA evidence that they said linked him to the homicide. Hayes’ lawyers presented expert testimony suggesting the DNA results were contaminated.
HOW HE GOT OUT: The Florida Supreme Court ordered a new trial because of faulty DNA analysis. “The record contains evidence suggesting that Hayes committed the homicide,” the court said, but it “also contains objective physical evidence suggesting that someone other than Hayes was responsible.” At a retrial, Hayes’ lawyers showed that hairs used to convict him the first time most likely came from a white person. Hayes, who is black, was acquitted.
link there goes your theory. if dna evidence can wrongfully put one man on death row then it's not unreasonable to assume that it can do likewise with others.
You seem to know so little of which you speak, you argue points you actually know nothing about. You insist DNA evidence can be planted, but have no idea how. That makes your argument rediculous.
err i did say this, which i note you cropped out of my quote in your reply:
" i think the ingredients needed would include- bent cops, bent cops with access to both the crime scene, the suspect, his abode, car etc. as for when the evidence is planted, it's surprising what the police sometimes find after the initial search of a crime scene. and as i have already said, that apart from the added risk of contaminating the planted dna evidence, planting an item of a suspects clothing containing his skin and hair for example is not a whole lot different from planting other forms of physical evidence, like spent shell casings from a suspects rifle. and it may add enough weight to circumstantial evidence to get him convicted."
if that’s completely implausable or impossible, or if you know that the planting of dna evidence in any circumstances is impossible then skip the evasives and go ahead and refute it with your superior knowledge, because to date you haven’t even come close to doing that. in fact, other than saying " planting dna evidence isn't that simple" you have said nothing of substance.
FWIW, criminals are rarely convicted on DNA evidence alone, there are almost always other factors leading to conviction. Let me guess, all that evidence can be planted too?
been there:
"and it may add enough weight to circumstantial evidence to get him convicted."
If you don't want to execute people who have been convicted largely on DNA evidence, how to you excuse the release of those who have been exonerated by DNA evidence?
why would i want to excuse it? if your implying that my misgivings on dna being the holy grail of evidence in death penalty trials is a sign that i'm against the use of dna evidence then your barking up the wrong tree. if dna evidence convicts the guiltily or tilts the pendulum of proof to the innocent side on the beyond reasonable doubt scale and rights a wrong then i'm all for it.
Can we ship our convicted murderers to your country? Many of our tax payers would be greatly appreciative of your misguided and uninformed views
nah, you keep your convicts, we have enough of our own. and i am quite well guided and formed but i can't say the same for you. you should put that barrow your pushing down once in while and have a good look around
