To: AppyPappy
They had blood DNA evidence... That isn't enough?
49 posted on
08/21/2002 10:26:54 AM PDT by
marajade
To: marajade
You definitely shouldn't spout that LIE to people who have followed this case. THERE WAS NO BLOOD.
To: marajade
They never placed him with the blood. It's not like they found semen in her which would prove intercourse. If they had found HIS DNA on her, that would be the match they need.
To: marajade
So what? It shows she was there at SOME POINT. The dogs did not hit on the blood. IF it was fresh, they would have.
To: marajade
EXCERPT FROM TRANSCRIPT/ARTICLE
My role was to examine the items for the presence of blood," Soriano told Deputy District Attorney George Clarke. "I noted stains on the jacket." Three stains tested positive for the presumptive presence of blood, the criminalist testified. They were on the front right middle, the front right shoulder and the neck portion of the jacket, he said. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/703322/posts?q=1&&page=51
One spot was from danielle, one was from Dw and the other unknown.
To: marajade
I have blood DNA evidence in my car belonging to my cousin. I drove him to the hospital once when he split his head open.
If he were to go missing, would I get the death penalty?
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson