Replies

One has to agree with all the posts about the incredible injustice and incompetence,
If one assumes all is as it appears, but
After the O.J. trial I have zero faith in Barry Scheck and his "Innocence Project" There is no doubt in my mind, that just like with OJ, he would have no qualms using lies and fraud to get a guilty person off.

I would be a lot more confident of the actual "innocence" in these cases, if I knew what precautions were used to make sure their was no possibility of trickery or sleight of hand or collusion with lab employees.

I have a very vague memory of a case in which their seemed to be substantial evidence of the perpetrators guilt, the innocence project got him released and he then committed a rape soon after he was released.

To be honest I have no real evidence to justify skepticism.

I just would not rule out the possibility that Barry Scheck has found a way to rig the tests.

What if he really did commit the rape, but knew that he had never ejaculated? After all, someone saw him committing the act and banged on the doors -- that might stop someone from 'finishing' his deed.

So -- he could be reasonably certain that the DNA would not link to him. And he'd be a perfect prospect for the so called Innocence Project. And he'd be guilty of the crime.

The fact that he had been charged with rape before, which was not used to convict him, BTW, suggests that he was the guy. Eyewitness testimony by the victim, of a guy on top of you and in your face, would seem to be strong evidence. And corroborated by the second witness, who interrupted the crime.

Whereas many women carry sperm (from a husband, or boyfriend) in their body for days. S the presence of another person's DNA is NOT exonerative in any definitive way.