Allusonz
New Member
- Joined
- Nov 3, 2010
- Messages
- 4,679
- Reaction score
- 17
Of course he would say that. That is his job to make sure that the conviction is beyond all reasonable doubt. That is just simple basics. I can't make the jump to him having reasonable doubt about anything. Or should I now conclude that he has no reasonable doubt about other pieces of evidence where he didn't request any additional info? That is just guess work. He is making sure he has enough information to come to the right conclusions. That is all. The conclusions come later.
The bottom line is this. Whether an individual is guilty or not, it does not allow for substandart forensics. If C & V found that many problems with the collection of evidence that is a valid point for appeal.
If the DNA evidence was not obtained according to standard protocols/procedures it truly does not matter whether we believe the individual/s to be guilty or inocent. The bottom line is that PLE screwed up.