What I don't understand is how DNA can be "selectively" used to either indict or set free?
I asked a criminal defence attorney on a murder case here in Vermont, why a woman who alledgedly murdered her husband, after accused of the crime NEVER proclaimed her innocence or never once said she wasn't guilty of the crime. The attorney told me if she wasn't guilty of the crime why would she acknowledge it? I said that's the dumbest thing I've ever heard, she was being accused, if she wasn't guilty why doesn't she just say so to answer her accuser? All the defence attorney's did the whole trial was accuse the police and investigators of mismanaging the crime seen and evidence.
The woman never once said she wasn't guilty of the crime she was being accused of committing (except at arraignment, which her lawyer answered) and a jury found her guilty on ALL counts.
If the alleged victim says that someone raped her, that's not hearsay. It's direct evidence. It may be false, or a jury may not believe it, but it's not hearsay. It's "He said, she said" as we heard ad nauseam with the IMPOTUS.
A forehead slapping statement I heard last night was that there was DNA found in the place of the attack (the bathroom)!! Ouch! Imagine that! Leaving DNA in the bathroom of your home!