Kind of an odd phrase. Does that mean there was no DNA evidence or that DNA did not match the convicted? As I trust the government less and less I become hesitant to use the death penalty. That said this article feels like it purposely omitted the evidence that got Williams convicted.
But her blood was on his clothing so....
People have this TV inspired illusion that they always find DNA. They don't.
Kind of an odd phrase.
That superfluous phrase was deliberately inserted into the article in order to "roil the waters," awaken needless doubts, and inspire fretting among low-info bleeding hearts.
Did you know that Oswald's DNA was also never found on the bullets which killed JFK? Neither did the bullets bear any recoverable fingerprints! But the real "clincher?" Wait for it: The gun shop receipt for the bullets was never found! Guess that means that Oswald must have been innocent, ri-ight?
Does that mean there was no DNA evidence or that DNA did not match the convicted?
There was definitely DNA evidence: The victim's DNA, the victim's husband's DNA (Gayle's husband had kissed her that morning, before she left for work), the victim's dog's DNA, etc. So what?
Regards,
That makes it sound like the DNA tests were inconclusive. They neither support or deny innocence.