GoBuckeyes
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Apr 13, 2016
- Messages
- 4,892
- Reaction score
- 28,095
I hope the truth about the matter is heard in court, the truth concerning that match or non-match, whichever the case may be. Experts are divided on the topic.I really hope the State can present the evidence about the gun, and the science behind how it all works, and why a juror should believe them in a clear and easy to follow manner. I’ve read bits about it but there seems to be some conflicts of opinion in what I’ve read as too the legitimacy of the science behind proving a gun matches a bullet cycled through a chamber. I don’t actually understand it as I haven’t spent much time trying to do so as it’s just not something of great interest to me at this time. But I can see how easy it might be for the D to completely flip that issue on its head and confuse the jurors enough to introduce reasonable doubt about this one issue….
Concerning forensics, take DNA and bite marks. DNA has become accepted and even expected; whereas, forensic odontology has determined bite mark evidence to be unreliable. I guess we'll see in time to which camp this new technique belongs, accepted versus debunked.
Probable cause or conviction based upon junk science, IF that turns out to be the case, isn't justice. moo