MistyWaters
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Feb 2, 2017
- Messages
- 12,003
- Reaction score
- 67,225
LE have never stated whose DNA was found at the crime scene, nor have they stated that they have other pieces of evidence to support a conviction.
Even if someone identifies BG and if, say, his DNA has been found on a weapon at the crime scene, that alone still doesn't prove his guilt. Touch DNA for example does not prove that the person actually visited the scene or directly touched the object in question. The DNA easily could have been transferred by other means.
Circumstantial evidence implies that the defendant was involved in the crime. Cases based on circumstantial evidence are like pieces of a puzzle. Each individual piece does not have to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. However, the more pieces you have, the higher the chance of a conviction.
”Beyond a reasonable doubt” is the highest legal standard. The standard requires that the evidence offer no logical explanation or conclusion other than that the defendant committed the crime.
And although the photo, sketch and audio were a helpful tool for LE in inviting tips, considering the likeness is not unique to any one individual (40,000 tips), merely a resemblance isn’t compelling evidence to convict “beyond reasonable doubt” in a court of law either.
As you say, LE needs more pieces.