girlhasnoname
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Oct 4, 2018
- Messages
- 9,923
- Reaction score
- 126,421
Agreed about ballistics, it's a debatable technology although still admissible in IN courtrooms. Both sides will have their own experts to argue the point and then the jury will decide how much weight to give it.To note, the FM says RA said he was gone by 1-1:30pm, which would mean he was gone by the time the girls were dropped off and would have been gone during the time of the murders. LE couldn’t provide the interview where they allege otherwise from my understanding. This is one of the many reasons they drafted the FM to contest the SWA, as they are claiming RA never stated he was there during the time of the murders.
Additionally, even spent bullets are not a solid piece of evidence. Ballistics is not a solid science. An unspent bullet alone has never convicted anyone in a U.S. court, and there may be a few where a spent bullet was a main piece of evidence, but there were other additional pieces of evidence.
JMO.
The bigger picture is that the State has a lot more evidence on RA to convict him than the unspent bullet. That's just one piece of evidence against RA=BG=Killer.
IMO