FUCK THE POLICE
911 EVERY DAY
A DNA test which was TOTALLY AND COMPLETELY INNACURATE. Those DNA tests shoul've been INADMISSABLE IN ANY COURT AS EVIDENCE.
Supreme court decides you have no right to prove your innocence
- Thread starter FUCK THE POLICE
- Start date
A DNA test which was TOTALLY AND COMPLETELY INNACURATE. Those DNA tests shoul've been INADMISSABLE IN ANY COURT AS EVIDENCE.
Do you have any evidence to support your theory? Talk about making shit up. LOL you're a joke.
FUCK THE POLICE
911 EVERY DAY
Or he didn't take it because he was innocent and there was a 1 out of 7 chance it would say he was positive no matter what. What would you do under those circumstances? CAN YOU NOT UNDERSTAND THIS YOU RETARD?
FUCK THE POLICE
911 EVERY DAY
Do YOU have any evidence to support YOUR theory? Of course not.
What theory? I cited a news story, dipshit
hahahah you just make me laugh. Can you come up with a few more fantasies to laugh about. This is fun
FUCK THE POLICE
911 EVERY DAY
The news story didn't take a position on WHY he confessed, or the CIRCUMSTANCES of his confession. It couldn't have, because there is no way to know. If he was guilty or innocent he would have confessed, and you would have as well - the confession proves nothing.
ib1yysguy
Junior Member
You plead guilty or no contest or not guilty at the beginning of a trial. This guy pleaded not guilty at the beginning of his trial. That was his PLEA.
After going to jail, in order to get parole, he "confessed" to the crime to meet the requirements AFTER going through trial. That is not a plea, and you are retarded.
FUCK THE POLICE
911 EVERY DAY
BTW, the details of the crime were public knowledge at the time of his confession, and of course, when he "confessed", he could have easily just looked up the details and "confessed" them. Tinfoil is acting like this is ironclad evidence when it proves nothing. DNA evidence is the ironclad evidence. Tinfoil is like DON'T YOU DARE DO THE DNA TEST OR I'LL EXPLODE!!!!!
That's why the conviction in a court of law is what matters. He had due process. What part of that do you not believe? His lawyer advised him to not take the test. The other evidence in the case was enough to convict. No DNA evidence was used, so how could it have made a difference? And even now? the other evidence used to convict doesn't suddenly go away because it wasn't his sperm in the condom. This isn't a case where they used his DNA and misidentified him as the perp. He refused to take that test
FUCK THE POLICE
911 EVERY DAY
Why didn't the prosecution use the advanced test at the time of the trial? Why would they have even bothered with a less refined test?
Again, this is your fantasy. You are totallly making shit up.
FUCK THE POLICE
911 EVERY DAY
I'm making up the fact that the details of trials are public knowledge? You act like this is information ONLY THE PERP could have known. Anyone who looked at the court case could have known.
USFREEDOM911
MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN
No, he wasn't innocent
why the fuck would I know? I don't even care either. The fact is he didn't! The fact is it didn't matter!
You're so stupid and this is such a pointless exercise. Enjoy your parnoia you little freak
USFREEDOM911
MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN
FUCK THE POLICE
911 EVERY DAY
You act like the defendant avoided the test like the plague, when in fact the prosecution also avoided it like the plague. It's pretty clear that the prosecution thought that they could do better off without a good test as well.
It does matter. Justice always matters. You suck.