JudgeJudi
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2014
- Messages
- 10,622
- Reaction score
- 31,380
Leazenby said there have been moments he believed the team was close to getting the killer but wouldn’t expand on what those moments were. He said, “"I fall back into the fact that when we get that one piece of evidence - and we're going to get it - we're only going to get one shot at a conviction."
My feeling is that:
1) IF they have what they believe to be BG’s DNA, they want at least one more piece of evidence to support it because DNA is very easily contaminated. It is circumstantial evidence and I’m unaware of any cases where DNA alone has brought about a murder conviction. However it’s been used very successfully in post-conviction exonerations. DNA must link a person to the crime, not just to a person.
2) They have some other evidence which on its own is not enough to secure a conviction.
Because this is such a high profile case, they won’t risk charging anyone without solid evidence because if they lose, double jeopardy law will apply and they will only get one chance.
My feeling is that:
1) IF they have what they believe to be BG’s DNA, they want at least one more piece of evidence to support it because DNA is very easily contaminated. It is circumstantial evidence and I’m unaware of any cases where DNA alone has brought about a murder conviction. However it’s been used very successfully in post-conviction exonerations. DNA must link a person to the crime, not just to a person.
2) They have some other evidence which on its own is not enough to secure a conviction.
Because this is such a high profile case, they won’t risk charging anyone without solid evidence because if they lose, double jeopardy law will apply and they will only get one chance.