Peter Hamilton said:
aspisdra--you are joking right--about OJ?--the DNA matched perfectly--Henry Lee himself recently stated OJ's blood was there--and his cut finger--and his bloody Bruno Magli shoe prints--and his no alibi(I was sleeping,no wait,I was hitting golf balls)--and the glove which fit PERFECTLY when he tried it on in court(the one that wasn't caked in dried blood)--and the bloody sock--and his smirking at the death scene--and his failing the lie-detector test(one of the worst scores ever)--and his conviction in the civil trial--etc.etc..--OJ's guilt is without question---you must be the only WebSleuther who thinks otherwise
I wasn't joking. I think OJ is guilty; any sane person does, but he was found to be innocent even though there were mountains of dna, right? I was pointing out how dna matching is not always going to save an innocent man, but might also be used to save a guilty man, depending on interpretation, and ignoring the rest of the evidence. I am not impressed when a bald statement says the dna doesn't match; he's no longer being charged. Huh? Tell me how all the rest of the evidence also doesn't match too. But no, that is now just dropped.
DNA is the big thing. But Henry Lee said it 's not a dna case, right?
I question this one statement of Mary Lacy's:
"This information is critical because...if Mr. Karr's account of his sexual involvement with the victim were accurate, it would have been highly likely that is saliva would have been mixed with the blood in the underwear," Lacy said in court papers.
Yes, but: in his account, his saliva doesn't go anywhere near the panties she was found in. What if he washed the body? No one is answering that. In his account he says he undressed the child. She was naked when he was abusing her. If he then washed all his saliva off the body (does anyone admit this is scientifically possible?) and redressed her, keeping her original panties as a souvenir, which he buried in a box with other souvenirs, then what? Why should his dna be on the oversize panties she was found in, or anything else, when he was wearing gloves when he handled her and the clothes, and was not depositing dna on her after he washed her?
I have heard our dna is all over the place. What of the talk about "degraded" dna or "not enough for a match" dna? Can someone say for sure his dna would last on her body, or anywhere in the house, after say 9 hours, 24 hours, if it had been wiped or washed or he was wearing gloves? Why is there no dna from the parents on her if they hugged her, carried her to bed ? Or is there? Could someone give us some assurance of this?
I'm not the only person in the world who thinks he would be executed for this crime if it happened 40 years ago, on circumstantial evidence alone. But because the dna doesn't match, they are not even LOOKING at the other evidence. Was the palm print even compared to his? Mary Lacy accepted his family's alibi for him , yet today I read that the ex wife is no longer sure; that they might have been separated.
I just don't like the constant changes in "he did it!" "he didn't do it!" without a definite thorough investigation of everything. We've got the emails and phone calls; now no one cares what he said? Just insane ramblings?
So the detailed confessions are meaningless now because the dna doesn't match. There's like months or years of things to investigate that he talked and wrote about. There's possibly more ways to link him to Boulder. If we don't go on "assuming" so much.