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

To: LongElegantLegs
Did you read ALL that article about the Supreme Court decision and DNA?

You get down far enough it says: "At the trial 16 years ago, Skinner's lawyer did not ask that this evidence be tested, apparently fearing that DNA evidence would only incriminate his client further. But since then, Skinner and a new team of lawyers have tried to get access to the material for DNA testing."]

What that means is that THIS IS NOT NEW MATERIAL. 16 years ago the defense could ask for DNA tests ~ but they didn't lest their client get even more incriminated.

I have to laugh at that one LMAOROF and ROFLMAO ~ WOW. Guy was afraid of being further incriminated in a multiple axe murder situation.

Now that's hard to do I'll tell you!

79 posted on 09/08/2011 8:54:29 AM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies ]


To: muawiyah

Can you provide a link?


80 posted on 09/08/2011 8:57:58 AM PDT by LongElegantLegs (Use it up, wear it out, make it over or do without.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies ]

To: muawiyah

Never mind, I found it. In Texas, the DNA doesn’t have to be yours to incriminate you. Josiah Sutton and Kevin Byrd were both incarcerated because of false testiony from the crime lab scientists.

It probably have seemed smarter to suppress evidence than to allow it to be presented as ‘conclusive evidence of guilt’ when it might not have been.


81 posted on 09/08/2011 9:02:38 AM PDT by LongElegantLegs (Use it up, wear it out, make it over or do without.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | 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