DexterMorgan
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Sep 29, 2014
- Messages
- 8,480
- Reaction score
- 10,121
Let's not forget. A piece of pizza crust linked darron wint to the dc murders. Even before they found other damming evidence as well.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
What was the other evidence?
*If* they have (sorry to be graphic) found his semen in the child, he's not going anywhere. He will be found guilty at least of rape from that, IMO.
I doubt that is the only evidence they have now or will have after they build their case. Whatever evidence they have will need to be shared with the defense. If the defense doesn't think it's enough for a strong case against his client, a speedy trial might be in order, but that's risky too, because it usually takes a good amount of time to build an equally strong defense.
Is that what was found, or do we know? Was it blood?
Each case is different and the very first one states that the "DNA was the PRIMARY evidence".
Police swabbed the rock for DNA. It matched the DNA of Pedro Arevalo, who was then arrested. Based on only the DNA match, the Orange County District Attorney charged Arevalo with felony second degree commercial burglary (Penal Code § 459).
At trial, the detective testified that swabbed the rock for DNA, as he did not think it belonged in the business. A DNA expert testified as well, explaining that someone’s DNA could remain on a rock for a year and that she had no idea when the DNA was posited on the rock. Nevertheless, the Orange County jury found Arevalo guilty of the crime.
Arevalo appealed, arguing the DNA evidence linking him to the burglary was insufficient to support his conviction. The Fourth Appellate District, in People v. Pedro Arevalo (2014 DJDAR 4659) distilled down the issue to “whether Arevalo’s DNA on a rock at the crime scene is, by itself, sufficiently substantial to allow any rational trier of fact to infer beyond a reasonable doubt Arevalo committed the burglary.”...
In Arevalo’s case, [the court] emphasized that Arevalo’s case was a “DNA – only case.” The court then looked to analogous finger print-only cases, such as Mikes v. Borg (9th Cir. 1991) 947 F.2d 353.
Welcome to the site and I definitely feel your pain and frustration with what to post or not. I have thousands of posts and have had my hand spanked many times for offering my theories on a case. I suggest you offer "in your opinion only' instead of theories. Painful I know. Been there, done that. Don't give up, keep posting. Looking forward to your "opinions".Thank you for the reply! When it comes to people being innocent or guilty, I guess I still don't see the difference in everyone sharing theories about who it could have been on here, compared to offering a theory about why LE mentioned going down that road.
Different subject: It's definitely more than possible that LE's biggest tips came from a kid(s). Hopefully they will have more than enough DNA evidence so that the testimony of a child won't be their nail in the coffin.
If he was under the influence of drugs, wouldn't that mitigate the circumstances of his crime? I would think he would want to drug test, but maybe too stupid to know that? Wouldn't having drugs in his system, maybe keep away capital murder charges? I guess each state is different.
This case. What was the other evidence in this case? I'm sorry but you're just assuming that cases never go to trial on just DNA evidence without actually looking to check.
http://www.greghillassociates.com/conviction-reversed-for-commercial-burglary-despite-evidence.html
He drowned Gabbi, so I don't see how he could have avoided at least some very wet mud, in order to get her in deep enough water to kill her.
Unless he strangled her first then threw her lifeless body on the creek. Could have been simultaneously
I think the theory is if there is only DNA evidence it's not enough to prosecute whether or not it proves a crime was committed.
IMOO it doesn't matter if it's the only evidence- it's enough. This guy is going down.
Why would it mitigate his guilt? Purposely taking a substance that may cause you to rape and murder a child (if there were any such thing) should be considered an allowance of possibly doing such a thing.