Why did the mother testify in defense of the father? I'm assuming that the DNA was utterly conclusive... Amazing.
"Why did the mother testify in defense of the father?"
You'd be surprised to find out how often a mother takes the side of the abuser over her own child.
Only if he is a complete idiot. Murdering the child could only bring attention to the rape. He had a much better chance of getting away with it if the child went on living.
Why did the mother testify in defense of the father? I'm assuming that the DNA was utterly conclusive... Amazing.
That’s a good question. Was there any physical evidence? The article does not mention any.
Funny, the article doesn't mention DNA evidence. All they mention is that he confessed after six hours of questioning, with the possibility that the police used questionable tactics.
Maybe his wife defended him because he's innocent? I don't know the guy, and maybe he's guilty as sin. But when children are involved, emotions run high, and miscarriages of justice have come about. Maybe a prosecutor found out about the suicide, thought something about the father seemed a little sleazy, and told the police to find out what needed to be found out.
This article has a lot of emotions and grief but is short on evidence of guilt. If I was on that jury, I would have voted to acquit if all they had was a confession that was:
1. Acquired by means of lying to the guy that they were going to take his whole family away.
2. Acquired after six hours of questioning, which would make a lot of us start saying things we didn't want to say.
3. Immediately recanted.
Maybe they had more, and the article doesn't say.
Guess again.