April 19, 2011 @ 3:14 p.m.
It seems to me that you can’t equate lack of evidence with proof. The articles that I read about the DNA testing for the Duke case and the way that the testing was mishandled seemed consistent with the idea that the parents of the accused students paid the testing center to suppress any test results that would indicate that any of the men were guilty.
DNA evidence is convincing evidence if you find that a sample taken from the alleged victim matches a sample given by the accused for the purpose of determining a match. Lack of that match as reported by the DNA testing center doesn’t prove that the crime didn’t occur.
Copyright L. Kochman April 19, 2011 @ 3:15 p.m.
It seems to me that you can’t equate lack of evidence with proof. The articles that I read about the DNA testing for the Duke case and the way that the testing was mishandled seemed consistent with the idea that the parents of the accused students paid the testing center to suppress any test results that would indicate that any of the men were guilty.
DNA evidence is convincing evidence if you find that a sample taken from the alleged victim matches a sample given by the accused for the purpose of determining a match. Lack of that match as reported by the DNA testing center doesn’t prove that the crime didn’t occur.
Copyright L. Kochman April 19, 2011 @ 3:15 p.m.