DNA cannot prove innocence, it can only prove guilt.These men who admitted doing it could have still done it, but just did not leave DNA behind, same as not leaving finger prints.
“DNA cannot prove innocence, it can only prove guilt.These men who admitted doing it could have still done it, but just did not leave DNA behind, same as not leaving finger prints.”
It’s pretty hard not to leave DNA behind; even a handshake exchanges DNA. Moreover, the absence of your DNA, and the presence of someone else’s DNA, tends to point rather firmly in the direction of their guilt, and not yours.
You might want to read about the circumstances in which they admitted doing it. They were 15 and 19 years old at the time, and were questioned for several hours without an attorney present. You have one of two possibilites - either they offered detailed confessions regarding the crime scene because they were there and very observant even given their mental capabilities or the facts were fed to them by the officers. The only evidence ever presented against them was the confessions which they quickly recanted after getting legal representation. The confessions themselves implicated two other individuals with rock solid alibis. Absolutely no physical evidence was found to link the two to the crime. A fingerprint was available at the time was never analyzed that later was tied to the admitted killer. The DNA also linked the killer (who a few weeks later raped and killed another in the same fashion). Check out http://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/1281161/mccollum-brown-memo.pdf
Is that you, Mike Nifong?
DNA cannot prove innocenceIt can certainly prove "Not Guilty", if you don't prefer to use the term "innocent". It's the same to me either way.
Consider the obvious body fluids left by a rapist. The DNA can be so strikingly different that it excludes the majority of the global population, including a given suspect. That is exculpatory in the extreme, isn't it?
Or blond hair determined to have been left by the suspect. That belongs to certain genetic markers that can't be fooled by hair dye. If the guy being questioned has red hair, doesn't DNA from both sets of hair follicles prove inmocence, or "not guilty" if you prefer?
That is an ignorant comment. In this case, the prosecutor and cops were corrupt. This is why that while I am theoretically in favor of the death penalty, I would NEVER vote for it without DNA evidence because you can't trust cops and prosecutors.