[EnderWiggin1970]

This is interesting, but without a confession I don't see how this can (or should) lead to a conviction. The biblical standard is that a person should be convicted of a crime on the testimony of two or more witnesses (Deut. 17:6), and that remains astute advice. I'm not sure forensic evidence counts as even a single witness, since at most it places a person at the scene of the crime, and maybe (if timing can somehow be established) at the time of the crime. That doesn't mean they were the one who committed the crime, nor does it address possibilities like being framed, or being victim of a dishonest crime lab (there have been some very bad cases of that). More direct evidence or a confession is still needed.

[Vaquero]

Friggin lawyers. You crack me up

[Chewbarkah]

Depends on where the hairs were found. Hairs found on the lawnmower, or on the sofa would not be conclusive. Hairs found on the victim’s person, or on the murder weapon would be compelling evidence.

[21twelve]

“After extensive investigation, detectives excluded two of the males, leaving Lapniewski as the primary suspect, who at that time resided a half mile from where the murder occurred.”

I imagine that other parts of the investigation provided evidence not discussed in this brief article. Just like the initial news of the Idaho killer was pretty limited, but now we have heard quite a bit.

Of course no cell phone data for this guy, and going through his stuff today won’t uncover any bloody clothing or rags.

[Nifster]

Our laws do not include your quoted Biblical standard

[skr]

Obviously, when the two-witness rule was written, it was a given that the witnesses would be human. At this point, with the advances made in both investigation expertise and in the technologies now available, a witness could be a camera or DNA, as well as humans.

[AZJeep]

If two witnesses would be required, most of the murders would go unsolved.

[jocon307]

Don’t know if you are being silly or obtuse, but you are very rarely going to have any witness to a murder, much less two. And in many if not most of those cases those involved would just point the finger at one another.

[TexasGator]

” The biblical standard is that a person should be convicted of a crime on the testimony of two or more witnesses (Deut. 17:6), and that remains astute advice. “

Two witnesses for the death penalty.

OTOH the witnesses apply the death sentence.

[Hot Tabasco]

The biblical standard is that a person should be convicted of a crime on the testimony of two or more witnesses (Deut. 17:6), and that remains astute advice.

That was before crime became rampant and investigative devices were created. With the absence of two or more witnesses, over 90 percent of the crimes committed would be unsolved.

You can't apply ALL biblical verses to modern day.......

[ridesthemiles]

IF I had a friend or family member who was the victim in a cold case-—I would want every possible method used to find the killer.

The Bible couldn’t have predicted DNA.

[Albion Wilde]

More direct evidence or a confession is still needed.

And that's why the last line of the article was, "The investigation continues."