Replies

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.

I would argue it is not compelling because it is ambiguous. It does not address possibilities like a criminal framing someone else, and there have been cases of dishonest crime labs making fraudulent reports. No doubt forensic evidence has been critically helpful in focusing a spotlight on a particular suspect who proved to be the criminal. But to say that because someone's DNA is at a crime scene establishes them as the criminal is a serious error.

It's noteworthy that when I've read about mistaken cases of conviction over the years, in every case the 2-witness standard was not met in the original conviction "beyond a reasonable doubt." Instead there was a dishonest or mistaken witness (often covering for the real criminal), along with a just-so story spun by an aggressive prosecuting attorney. You don't need to be a Christian to recognize the common sense behind the 2-witness standard. Let's hope those who scoff at it never find themselves framed either by real criminals or overzealous attorneys looking to "solve" a crime.

Hairs found on the victim’s person, or on the murder weapon would be compelling evidence.

Unless, of course, the then-19-year-old was having consensual sex with the 82-year-old victim, which, if asked, he will claim.