I guess it's time to stop lurking and make a few points, in no particular order.
1. I do not believe AK or RS killed MK. And I mean that literally. Neither one used a knife on her
or held her while someone else did.
2. I do believe both AK and RS know more than they are telling, and they will likely take it to the grave. What they know makes for great speculation and discussion, but unfortunately that's all it is.
3. All of the discussion around the behaviour of AK and RS indicating guilt is ridiculous. I have been working in IT (a field known for odd characters) for almost 30 years, and I have seen my share of strange. Simply put, we are all different; we all handle things differently; we all speak differently; we all react differently. What a boring world we would live in if that were not the case. Every time I hear someone say they acted strangely, they are really saying that's not how they would have acted. First, so what? Second, let's circle back to this question next time you're accused of murder.
4. Forensic evidence. This is the fun one.
I am all for forensic evidence, but the pendulum has swung too far. If there is sufficient forensic evidence, and it tells a story, and that story is backed up by other evidence, great. A speck of DNA, that was too small to be tested during the initial trial, that does not line up with other DNA to tell a story, let alone back up a story presented by other evidence, is insufficient.
The discussion and debate on this forum has been great. And in my mind, this is the very definition of reasonable doubt. Is it possible AK and RS, with RG killed MK? Yes, it's possible. But from everything I have read, it seems far more likely that they didn't do it. And besides, let's say for a minute they did, and they are set free (for good). Does anybody really believe they are going to do this again. Do they pose a threat to us? Seems to me it would be a greater injustice to lock them up.
There you have it. I have a thick skin, so fire away.
Jim
Sent from my iPhone using
Tapatalk