billywhizz
Member
- Joined
- Sep 2, 2013
- Messages
- 330
- Reaction score
- 8
Why are people still hypothesizing about MM footage (whether JR was drinking) as well as any other number of things such as where he worked etc. ?? It's all been done many times before.
He is in court tomorrow.
You will find out one way or another soon. He might not even be guilty. He might be mystery man, he might not. YOU WILL FIND OUT (what the police think) SOON.
Just give it a rest so we don't have to wade through all this stuff for the millionth time.
You were asked by police when he was arrested not to jeopardise the case. Why you are all still sleuthing this guy and posting about other murders he has possibly done is beyond me.
If you want to discuss anything it should be
(a) the trial/his court appearance
(b) known evidence ie. not unkown evidence that you've just had a random guess at
(c) whether he could have been framed etc. likelihood of being found guilty if all they have is DNA and a forensic link
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2002/jan/27/ukcrime.research
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/06/a-reasonable-doubt/480747/
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-19412819
http://dnapolicyinitiative.org/police-use-of-dna-mistakes-error-and-fraud/
I can't remember the specifics but there was an episode in the UK I think where they thought a bunch of cases were linked and committed by the same person. It ended up being the DNA of the actual tester that was contaminating all the tests.
He is in court tomorrow.
You will find out one way or another soon. He might not even be guilty. He might be mystery man, he might not. YOU WILL FIND OUT (what the police think) SOON.
Just give it a rest so we don't have to wade through all this stuff for the millionth time.
You were asked by police when he was arrested not to jeopardise the case. Why you are all still sleuthing this guy and posting about other murders he has possibly done is beyond me.
If you want to discuss anything it should be
(a) the trial/his court appearance
(b) known evidence ie. not unkown evidence that you've just had a random guess at
(c) whether he could have been framed etc. likelihood of being found guilty if all they have is DNA and a forensic link
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2002/jan/27/ukcrime.research
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/06/a-reasonable-doubt/480747/
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-19412819
http://dnapolicyinitiative.org/police-use-of-dna-mistakes-error-and-fraud/
I can't remember the specifics but there was an episode in the UK I think where they thought a bunch of cases were linked and committed by the same person. It ended up being the DNA of the actual tester that was contaminating all the tests.