I realize that a ‘paper article is not sworn testimony. I recognize the justice and fairness issues here.
My concern is with the way the evidence is being presented- well, if the blood on the pants is not the accused’s, then he must go free. But what if the blood were the victim’s? Does the accused still have to go free?
The evidence, presented in this incomplete way, does not logically support the premise that the accused was not there. It just says it’s not his blood on the pants. Whose blood is it? A third party who may be the real perpetrator, or the victim? In the latter case the evidence does not exhonerate the accused.
Well then fry the guy.