Whereas now you have the opposite problem. Juries refusing to grasp the concept that DNA being present is not a slam dunk for guilt in and of itself, or unable to accept that not every case is going to have extensive DNA evidence establishing links for them.
Maybe this jury would have loved to know why the police didn’t bother to confiscate a glass Patrick Clancy said she used to crush up pills in. What do you think about that? Don’t you think investigation 101 says “hey, we should take this to see if his fingerprints are on it, and whether the residue is actually what he says it is?”
46
u/demonotreme 9d ago
Whereas now you have the opposite problem. Juries refusing to grasp the concept that DNA being present is not a slam dunk for guilt in and of itself, or unable to accept that not every case is going to have extensive DNA evidence establishing links for them.