Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Howlin

Refusing to take a lie detector test doesnt prove guilt. I posted an article earlier about a guy from Illinois that was convicted after tracking dogs picked up the scent, but was later exonerated when DNA tests proved him innocent.
When I was 20 I said the same things about me and kids. That was during my wild days ofcourse, now Im 32 and ready for kids.


675 posted on 12/07/2004 11:36:34 PM PST by theconservativerepublican (www.theconservativerepublican.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 673 | View Replies ]


To: theconservativerepublican
Refusing to take a lie detector test doesnt prove guilt.

No, but it sounds really bad, doesn't it.

Just like his mother telling him to "deny, deny, deny" sounds bad.

Or his own mother saying even Scott wasn't stupid enough to dump their bodies in the bay.

Or that he had Viagra in his car when he was arrested.

You keep harping on not convicting somebody on circumstantial evidence; how can you be in college and not know that MOST cases are prosecuted on circumstantial evidence?

YOu act like there's something wrong with circumstantial evidence -- it's like you don't even realize that circumstantial evidence is treated just like direct evidence.

677 posted on 12/07/2004 11:42:06 PM PST by Howlin (W, Still the President)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 675 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson