LoisLane
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2014
- Messages
- 2,553
- Reaction score
- 2,027
I assume you're not asking this because you believe the accused should be immediately convicted. We don't want that, the accused has the right to a defence. I also don't think we have a court process so that we can think up alternate theories of the crime. It's possible the defence could try this approach, but depending on the quality of the evidence against the accused, it might not do much good. For example, there would have to be some sort of evidence besides a handful of "pseudo-cide" anecdotes to counter, say, DNA evidence found on the boots of the accused, or gallons of the victims' blood at the crime scene, with expert testimony that no one could survive that degree of blood loss. With that kind of evidence, theories about disappearances-staged-as-death would be a pretty silly defence strategy.
The court process will bring to light, at long last, the evidence against the accused. LE's case will be tested. The question is not "did he do it?", but rather "Is there enough evidence to convict?"
Sure. I guess we will wait to see if DG applies for bail. He is a flight risk so maybe he won't bother. I don't know how much evidence can be presented at the time of bail application to give him grounds for release from custody. Let's say he does apply and it isn't granted. Is that a sick attempt from DG to endure suffering of his victims or an attempt to reveal that the prosecution might not have enough pieces to form a conviction?
ETA: I have had read thru your post again. If the evidence you suggest comes forward (BBM) I would be more convinced that the investigation has the evidence to prove the suspect charged is guilty. We have no idea if DNA evidence will amount to what you are speculating (BBM) as LE is not willing to reveal a detail or comment that they have DNA evidence to prove the victims are deceased.