To: kinoxi
No, but it's not unreasonable to ask that the testing be done now. PCR was only developed in 1985, so it wasn't available at the time. Although the article doesn't state it, Allen has presumably repudiated the confession. If he's claiming that someone else raped and murdered the victim, the presence of DNA other than his would be evidence supportive of that claim.
To: MarcusTulliusCicero
5 posted on
06/02/2006 10:50:05 PM PDT by
kinoxi
To: MarcusTulliusCicero
He admitted doing it.
He claimed he had a mental condition that caused him to do it.
Nothing a DNA test would change.
11 posted on
06/03/2006 1:22:38 AM PDT by
DB
(©)
To: MarcusTulliusCicero
BTW, just because his semen is or is not present doesn't mean he didn't kill her.
12 posted on
06/03/2006 1:26:15 AM PDT by
DB
(©)
To: MarcusTulliusCicero
Alley confessed but argued that he was not responsible for murder because he suffered from multiple personalities. The trial jury rejected his insanity plea, and appeals courts refused to hear his complaints that defense lawyers were inefficient. How does DNA testing affect these facts, at all? Make him die, the sooner, the better.
20 posted on
06/03/2006 9:30:41 AM PDT by
Lonesome in Massachussets
(NYT Headline: 'Protocols of the Learned Elders of CBS: Fake But Accurate, Experts Say.')
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson