Under Cuccinelli, 2% of inmates got parole

[Kitsune]

http://wvtf.org/post/why-convicted-kill ... be-paroled
“This current parole board has a parole grant rate of two percent, which means that 98% of the prisoners are denied parole, and last year they actually denied me parole 11 days before the board hearing.”

I just don't see how locking up the door and throwing away the key is a valid solution.

[Grumman]

I just don't see how locking up the door and throwing away the key is a valid solution.

You think releasing an unrepentant murderer is a better solution?

[Darmalus]

We (the USA) are generally unwilling to put forth the effort to reform people or humanly dispose of them. So instead we warehouse them forever somewhere out of sight. The politics seem to be deadlocked, so the possibility of changing the system is basically zero.

I'm tempted to say "When in Rome, do as the Romans or face the Roman consequences." but the politicians will do their horse trading. Yes, I apply this to Americans committing crimes in other countries.

[Mr Bean]

I just don't see how locking up the door and throwing away the key is a valid solution.

You think releasing an unrepentant murderer is a better solution?

A German in Germany and the Germans want him back. He's served time in America so it's not like he's waving a diplomatic immunity badge up and it's been over twenty years. I say we give him back to Germany and bar him from re-entering America. If the Germans want to release him that is literally on them.

This is not Somalia or even Qatar where sending him back is a mistake... it's Germany and we should let the Germans have him.

[Grumman]

He's served time in America so it's not like he's waving a diplomatic immunity badge up...

Apparently, waving a diplomatic immunity badge was the first thing he did. It was only after he found out that his father's being a diplomat wasn't a license to murder that he went back on his confession.

[Mr Bean]

He's served time in America so it's not like he's waving a diplomatic immunity badge up...

Apparently, waving a diplomatic immunity badge was the first thing he did. It was only after he found out that his father's being a diplomat wasn't a license to murder that he went back on his confession.

I know, it was twenty years ago however. He was tried and convicted, he's a convicted murder and a German citizen. It's not like the blood is still warm on the knife and we are rushing the Kaisers son back to Germany to escape justice. He's already been in jail for over twenty years.

[Kitsune]

I just don't see how locking up the door and throwing away the key is a valid solution.

You think releasing an unrepentant murderer is a better solution?

To be blunt, there is no DNA evidence on him. I trust confessions like a hole in my head.

[Raw Shark]

I just don't see how locking up the door and throwing away the key is a valid solution.

You think releasing an unrepentant murderer is a better solution?

To be blunt, there is no DNA evidence on him. I trust confessions like a hole in my head.

Fall prey to CSI Effect much?

That said, I agree with earlier posters that if Germany wants him, they can have him. If he's kicked out of our society, they can release the fucking psycho back into theirs according to their own standards and I wish them good luck with that.

[Kitsune]

Fall prey to CSI Effect much?

That said, I agree with earlier posters that if Germany wants him, they can have him. If he's kicked out of our society, they can release the fucking psycho back into theirs according to their own standards and I wish them good luck with that.

Any you fall for believing every confession. . . .False Confessions

[Thanas]

I don't care much for the guy, but he has saved a longer sentence than most murderers over here do (and amazingly, only 24% of them ever commit another crime again - and that is talking about all crimes) so if the German justice system wants him, I don't see why the US should refuse to play ball about that.

[Raw Shark]

Fall prey to CSI Effect much?

That said, I agree with earlier posters that if Germany wants him, they can have him. If he's kicked out of our society, they can release the fucking psycho back into theirs according to their own standards and I wish them good luck with that.

Any you fall for believing every confession. . . .False Confessions

No, I fall for every confession instantly-recanted after the confessor finds out he doesn't have a get out of jail free card that he thought he did. Go whack off over a copy of Helter Skelter, you dumbfuck strawmanning murder groupie.

[Kitsune]

No, I fall for every confession instantly-recanted after the confessor finds out he doesn't have a get out of jail free card that he thought he did. Go whack off over a copy of Helter Skelter, you dumbfuck strawmanning murder groupie.

Grow up and realize that some people might have differences of opinion. . .What are you, fifteen?

[Raw Shark]

No, I fall for every confession instantly-recanted after the confessor finds out he doesn't have a get out of jail free card that he thought he did. Go whack off over a copy of Helter Skelter, you dumbfuck strawmanning murder groupie.

Grow up and realize that some people might have differences of opinion. . .What are you, fifteen?

You don't get to call the, "Hey I get to say whatever the fuck I want without evidence because opinions, and mean words are bad," card here, dipshit. You also don't get to strawman what I actually said in this thread about what you actually said in this thread. Read the board rules, stupid.

[Purple]

Fall prey to CSI Effect much?

Reading that article I fail to see how it is a bad thing. Forensic evidence should be considered far more reliable than witness testimony. And it should be impossible to convict someone just by having a good story and some people to confirm it.

[Thanas]

^That makes no sense, especially in crimes where there is little to no forensic evidence like fraud or larceny.

[Simon_Jester]

Fall prey to CSI Effect much?

Reading that article I fail to see how it is a bad thing. Forensic evidence should be considered far more reliable than witness testimony. And it should be impossible to convict someone just by having a good story and some people to confirm it.

As Thanas noted, certain crimes have little or no forensic evidence associated with them. Others might leave forensic evidence, but the cost of gathering the evidence far exceeds the scale of the crime (shoplifting)

On top of that, the key point here is that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. "No forensic evidence" cannot be used to prove someone did not commit a crime. One eyewitness' testimony might be unreliable in and of itself. But it's still relevant, the direct observations of humans who see another human commit a crime still matter. Especially if we're dealing with numerous overlapping witnesses, or with eyewitness testimony backed by other evidence (say, security camera footage, or the defendant having taken steps that would put them in position to commit the murder).

The CSI Effect observes that:
1) Juries are coming to expect forensic evidence to be clear-cut, when it often is not, which biases them.
2) Juries are coming to expect forensic evidence to be present, even in cases where that is not realistic or practical: "Why didn't you dust the lawn for fingerprints? That introduces reasonable doubt!" In reality, dusting a lawn for fingerprints is impossible.
3) Juries are discounting other forms of evidence which are present in favor of insisting that forensic evidence be relied upon, even when the forensic evidence is weak or compromised. Thus, when we don't have a DNA sample (because the criminal was careful to avoid leaving DNA traces, or because the crime scene was not discovered until those traces had been wiped out by natural forces), but we DO have other evidence (witnesses placing the criminal at the scene, an outright confession), we get idiots trying to completely ignore or negate those other kinds of evidence, because of (2).

They expect the forensic evidence to always be there, for you to always be able to use forensics to prove who committed a crime if you just work hard enough.

[Grumman]

2) Juries are coming to expect forensic evidence to be present, even in cases where that is not realistic or practical: "Why didn't you dust the lawn for fingerprints? That introduces reasonable doubt!" In reality, dusting a lawn for fingerprints is impossible.

Or demanding forensic evidence that would merely state the obvious. I haven't read yet where the murders took place, but establishing that a man had visited his girlfriend's house, for example, doesn't help much.

[Raw Shark]

Fall prey to CSI Effect much?

Reading that article I fail to see how it is a bad thing. Forensic evidence should be considered far more reliable than witness testimony.

In a direct conflict between forensic evidence and witness testimony (with limits; it's hard to fool thousands), sure, I agree 100%, but:

And it should be impossible to convict someone just by having a good story and some people to confirm it.

Impossible? Impossible? Hypothetical: You're on the jury at the Murder 1 trial that I had to testify at a year and a half ago. There is absolutely no forensic evidence, possibly due to the efforts of the defendant with some evidence suggesting that (including somebody who says they saw him laundering bloody clothing), but the Prosecution has trotted out over 30 witnesses firmly establishing that the defendant was alone with the stabbing victim at the time of the murder and had a history of problem-solving-through-stabbing-people. Vote guilty Y/N?

[Kitsune]

2) Juries are coming to expect forensic evidence to be present, even in cases where that is not realistic or practical: "Why didn't you dust the lawn for fingerprints? That introduces reasonable doubt!" In reality, dusting a lawn for fingerprints is impossible.

Or demanding forensic evidence that would merely state the obvious. I haven't read yet where the murders took place, but establishing that a man had visited his girlfriend's house, for example, doesn't help much.

This case is a weird one as far as evidence:

1. His confession has inconsistencies with the murder. This is not a great argument because the confession was some time afterward and people's memories are really screwed up.

2. He (they) rented a car which he is suppose to have used to go to the murder. There was no blood found in the vehicle. The crime scene was pretty bloody from what I have read. Idea of him not carrying blood to the car seems pretty strange.

3. There were a group of samples from the crime scene and none of them had his DNA on them. The question is if it is possible that he committed the murders (with a knife) and did not get his DNA on the scene.

I don't know if he committed the crime but the evidence does not seem real good when all we have is a foot print around his size (and is vague enough that it could have been hers as well) and a confession.

[Simon_Jester]

2) Juries are coming to expect forensic evidence to be present, even in cases where that is not realistic or practical: "Why didn't you dust the lawn for fingerprints? That introduces reasonable doubt!" In reality, dusting a lawn for fingerprints is impossible.

Or demanding forensic evidence that would merely state the obvious. I haven't read yet where the murders took place, but establishing that a man had visited his girlfriend's house, for example, doesn't help much.

This case is a weird one as far as evidence:...

2. He (they) rented a car which he is suppose to have used to go to the murder. There was no blood found in the vehicle. The crime scene was pretty bloody from what I have read. Idea of him not carrying blood to the car seems pretty strange.

How is it strange that someone would succeed in cleaning themselves up after a murder to the extent that there would be no detectable blood? Hell, some strategically placed towels or garbage bags could take care of that.

One of the (numerous) reasons that we can't automatically insist that forensic evidence be present is that many modern criminals know about it. They know that small traces of blood can be detected, and are routinely used to catch criminals. And they're not stupid, so they may well take some precautions.

3. There were a group of samples from the crime scene and none of them had his DNA on them. The question is if it is possible that he committed the murders (with a knife) and did not get his DNA on the scene.

There was apparently no DNA detectable with the technology of twenty years ago, or no DNA identifiable as his... which could mean he was careful, or that something was overlooked, or any of a number of things. We don't know.

I don't know if he committed the crime but the evidence does not seem real good when all we have is a foot print around his size (and is vague enough that it could have been hers as well) and a confession.

Again, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Are you fully versed in the case? If so, would you mind sharing your sources with us?

[Kitsune]

OHow is it strange that someone would succeed in cleaning themselves up after a murder to the extent that there would be no detectable blood? Hell, some strategically placed towels or garbage bags could take care of that.

One of the (numerous) reasons that we can't automatically insist that forensic evidence be present is that many modern criminals know about it. They know that small traces of blood can be detected, and are routinely used to catch criminals. And they're not stupid, so they may well take some precautions.

These type of things are harder to do than you think. I actually read materials from FBI people and they have argued that even with the best precautions it is very difficult to prevent blood transfer completely. This murder also took place in the 1985 when there were not any forensic TV shows which they could watch. I had a book which dabbled in forensic subjects from that time and it did not talk about blood splatter or blood transfer and how easy it is to transfer.

The best I can think of to prevent blood splatter is to wear one of those white hazard suits, strip it off, and put it in a plastic bag. I sure am going to be suspicious of somebody wearing one of those suits though.
According to Weather Underground, in Williamsburg VA on March 29, 1985 (Date of the Murder), Mean temp was 71 F, Max was 89 F, and Low was 53 F so a pretty warm day so heavy cold weather clothes are also out.

3. There were a group of samples from the crime scene and none of them had his DNA on them. The question is if it is possible that he committed the murders (with a knife) and did not get his DNA on the scene.

There was apparently no DNA detectable with the technology of twenty years ago, or no DNA identifiable as his... which could mean he was careful, or that something was overlooked, or any of a number of things. We don't know.[/quote]

They had 26 samples which at the time was untestable. They were tested within the last few years with more modern techniques and none of the sames showed his DNA. I do not know if they showed others. However, by your statement you never read what I linked to.

Again, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Are you fully versed in the case? If so, would you mind sharing your sources with us?

Being that you did not even read the NPR article I posted, I would say that i am way more versed than you are.

You quote is also wrong. . .If there should be evidence of the crime then lack of evidence is evidence of absence.

[Simon_Jester]

These type of things are harder to do than you think. I actually read materials from FBI people and they have argued that even with the best precautions it is very difficult to prevent blood transfer completely. This murder also took place in the 1985 when there were not any forensic TV shows which they could watch. I had a book which dabbled in forensic subjects from that time and it did not talk about blood splatter or blood transfer and how easy it is to transfer.

It did... NOT? I'm going to assume you mean it "did."

The problem here is that you're making the automatic assumption that the blood traces must be there, when there are alternative explanations. It is not the case that every murder comes with blood spatters and the killer carelessly transferring the victim's blood. Just because it is easy, in your amateur opinion, for a killer to get the victim's blood all over the place does not mean we can just assume that it will always happen.

The best I can think of to prevent blood splatter is to wear one of those white hazard suits, strip it off, and put it in a plastic bag. I sure am going to be suspicious of somebody wearing one of those suits though.
According to Weather Underground, in Williamsburg VA on March 29, 1985 (Date of the Murder), Mean temp was 71 F, Max was 89 F, and Low was 53 F so a pretty warm day so heavy cold weather clothes are also out.

Since you have obviously spent time reviewing the case, and I have not, I cannot say. If the killer had to gain the victim's trust to get close enough to launch the attack, the heavy clothes might be "out." If the murderer simply rushed into the woman's home it would not matter if they were wearing heavy clothes or not while doing so- and I don't know about you, but I could stand wearing a parka in the heat for a while if it meant I was less likely to go to jail.

Other possibilities: the forensic personnel simply made mistakes, OR the killer had a change of clothes handy and took time to wash up, OR the killer used one of a variety of means of covering up the parts of the car they'd come in contact with (towels, plastic garbage bags or other sheeting), then removed and discarded that layer.

Do real, professional criminal investigators actually make this assumption of yours, that there must logically be blood traces at a crime scene, or the accused killer must be innocent?

3. There were a group of samples from the crime scene and none of them had his DNA on them. The question is if it is possible that he committed the murders (with a knife) and did not get his DNA on the scene.

There was apparently no DNA detectable with the technology of twenty years ago, or no DNA identifiable as his... which could mean he was careful, or that something was overlooked, or any of a number of things. We don't know.

They had 26 samples which at the time was untestable. They were tested within the last few years with more modern techniques and none of the sames showed his DNA. I do not know if they showed others. However, by your statement you never read what I linked to. [/quote]I apologize. I quite simply and literally overlooked the link. When I'm not trying to pull my wits together over my morning coffee and get to work I'll backtrack and review what you linked to.

So, they had 26 untestable samples. Do you know whether that is normal or abnormal? DNA samples are not always testable or clearly identifiable, this much I know; it is not an automatic thing where we get positive matches 99.9% of the time or anything like that.

I will say more when I've reviewed the case properly. But again, please try to remember that by the very explicit statements of real forensic investigators, in real criminal investigations, forensic evidence is not always available and is not always unambiguous, and this doesn't mean the accused is innocent.

Again, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Are you fully versed in the case? If so, would you mind sharing your sources with us?

Being that you did not even read the NPR article I posted, I would say that i am way more versed than you are.

Again, I apologize, I literally overlooked the link and did not even notice it.

You quote is also wrong. . .If there should be evidence of the crime then lack of evidence is evidence of absence.

And, as noted above, it is not as simple as saying "if this man committed murder, there should be plenty of unambiguous blood and DNA evidence proving he did it."

Raw Shark addressed this, and you never really responded- he pointed out that he had participated in a murder case where not one or two but thirty witnesses placed the defendant at the scene of the crime, established his prior record, and indicated that there was cause to believe he might have destroyed evidence to protect himself. This is perhaps an extreme example but it illustrates the point: you can't simply stick your fingers in your ears and go "la-la-la, I can't HEAR you!" when dealing with cases where the forensic evidence is ambiguous.

[Kitsune]

I want to add on the top that I think he had something to do with the murders. I don't know exactly but I don't think whatever he did, he directly held the knife or was in a position to get blood on him. I suspect very much that there was a second car involved somehow as well. There was a later witness to that effect although later witnesses are often also not trustworthy.

It did... NOT? I'm going to assume you mean it "did."

No, I mean that it did NOT. There appears to have not been much information available to the layman as far as forensic science in the mid 1980s. Can you think of any TV shows from back then that spoke extensively about blood splatter and blood evidence?

The problem here is that you're making the automatic assumption that the blood traces must be there, when there are alternative explanations. It is not the case that every murder comes with blood spatters and the killer carelessly transferring the victim's blood. Just because it is easy, in your amateur opinion, for a killer to get the victim's blood all over the place does not mean we can just assume that it will always happen.

Not quite an amateur opinion. Not an expert like the police but did once hold a PI license.
Granted, I am a glass half full kind of person where my threshold is more likely to have doubt than some others.

You will agree however that some times cops / prosecutors do make bad calls, do prosecute the wrong person, and get the wrong person to confess? Virginia kind of has a history of getting innocents to confess pointing specifically at the Norfolk Four.

As far as blood evidence. There is a recent case of Russ Faria. He did not confess.
He was watching movies with his D&D friends when his wife was murdered.
Four of them alibied him and he is both shown of store cameras before the murder and after the murder.
He was of course found guilty even though he seems to have a rock solid alibi.

The reason why I bring him up is that blood was found on a set of slippers of his in the closet and a light switch.
He was wearing the clothes shown in the previous video recording. No blood stains on them.
The prosecutor though suggested that he stripped out of his clothes, murdered her naked, and then showered (Did not present any evidence just asserted.)
As you can see, the kind of work-around the prosecutor did to explain no blood evidence.

Since you have obviously spent time reviewing the case, and I have not, I cannot say. If the killer had to gain the victim's trust to get close enough to launch the attack, the heavy clothes might be "out." If the murderer simply rushed into the woman's home it would not matter if they were wearing heavy clothes or not while doing so- and I don't know about you, but I could stand wearing a parka in the heat for a while if it meant I was less likely to go to jail.

If stories are to be believed, he was not liked by the mother and father. In addition, I do not believe he is that big a guy. Granted, he is younger than them but still there were two of them.

Other possibilities: the forensic personnel simply made mistakes, OR the killer had a change of clothes handy and took time to wash up, OR the killer used one of a variety of means of covering up the parts of the car they'd come in contact with (towels, plastic garbage bags or other sheeting), then removed and discarded that layer.

It is entirely possible that the forensic people made mistakes. Humans are humans. The thing is that I don't trust confessions, especially ones that are later recanted. I want some really solid evidence linking a person to the scene.
Could be carefully built circumstantial evidence like the Laci Peterson Case. The problem is that I think, even if the person is guilty, if the prosecutions cannot prove the case then you need to acquit. In a later review of the evidence does not support guilt, I think the same should also be the case.

Give you a more recent personal case. I got into a car accident last year, maybe January. Second accident in my life and the other was a mild fender bender. Cop gave me a ticket but did not see the accident. Was going to give me reckless but the other officers persuaded her to go "failure to yield." Overheard him tell her. It was a blind turn where I could not see the road.

I was prepared to argue my case. I also took a driver improvement online class so that if it did not go my way, it would not be so many points. The cop showed up, I showed up, but the cop had no witnesses to the accident. The judge just dismissed the case. Maybe the judge believed I was guilty but the officer did not have evidence to support her case.

Do real, professional criminal investigators actually make this assumption of yours, that there must logically be blood traces at a crime scene, or the accused killer must be innocent?

In the Norfolk Four case, multiple forensics people argued that exact thing. Depends on the exact nature of the case. I think this is one case where there really should be some physical evidence of the crime.
You have the burden of proof reversed however. In the US (Britain and former British colonies as well), at least in theory it is the prosecutors job to prove guilt not the defense to prove innocence.

So, they had 26 untestable samples. Do you know whether that is normal or abnormal? DNA samples are not always testable or clearly identifiable, this much I know; it is not an automatic thing where we get positive matches 99.9% of the time or anything like that.

They were not untestable. They were tested by modern methods and none came back with his DNA. As I wrote, I do not know if the DNA pointed to somebody else.

Raw Shark addressed this, and you never really responded- he pointed out that he had participated in a murder case where not one or two but thirty witnesses placed the defendant at the scene of the crime, established his prior record, and indicated that there was cause to believe he might have destroyed evidence to protect himself. This is perhaps an extreme example but it illustrates the point: you can't simply stick your fingers in your ears and go "la-la-la, I can't HEAR you!" when dealing with cases where the forensic evidence is ambiguous.

I tend to be more willing to forgive than him. . . .After 20 to 40 years, I am generally willing to release people who show signs of having reformed back into the population. He writes stuff like "Go listen to Helter Skelter" because I have a different opinion. As a result, I don't always read his posts as closely as I might otherwise.

As you can probably tell with my previous posts, even though purely circumstantial, I believe Scott Peterson is guilty.
He was not part of a cult or a person under somebody's spell so I consider him worse than the followers of Charles Manson.
Yes, I would consider 30 people (if the line up is done right) or if they know him/her to be pretty definitive evidence of guilt.

The reason why I talk about line ups is there was a case where a women would steal other women's identities. She worked at a DMV so pretty damn easy. She would then wrack up huge debts. One women who was defrauded went to one of the stores where she was suppose to owe a ton of money to. Confronted and argued with the owner, making herself memorable.
The owner was later asked to identify the person who bought a bunch of stuff on credit and pointed out the lady who argued with them.

[Raw Shark]

You will agree however that some times cops / prosecutors do make bad calls, do prosecute the wrong person, and get the wrong person to confess? Virginia kind of has a history of getting innocents to confess pointing specifically at the Norfolk Four.

My hat's off to you, Sir: Not even David Copperfield would have the audacity to attempt to move a set of goalposts so far, so fast, without a live audience noticing.

As far as blood evidence. There is a recent case of Russ Faria. He did not confess.
He was watching movies with his D&D friends when his wife was murdered.
Four of them alibied him and he is both shown of store cameras before the murder and after the murder.
He was of course found guilty even though he seems to have a rock solid alibi.

The reason why I bring him up is that blood was found on a set of slippers of his in the closet and a light switch.
He was wearing the clothes shown in the previous video recording. No blood stains on them.
The prosecutor though suggested that he stripped out of his clothes, murdered her naked, and then showered (Did not present any evidence just asserted.)
As you can see, the kind of work-around the prosecutor did to explain no blood evidence.

Sounds like that guy got totally screwed by the system. What does that have to do with the case in question?

Give you a more recent personal case. I got into a car accident last year, maybe January. Second accident in my life and the other was a mild fender bender. Cop gave me a ticket but did not see the accident. Was going to give me reckless but the other officers persuaded her to go "failure to yield." Overheard him tell her. It was a blind turn where I could not see the road.

I was prepared to argue my case. I also took a driver improvement online class so that if it did not go my way, it would not be so many points. The cop showed up, I showed up, but the cop had no witnesses to the accident. The judge just dismissed the case. Maybe the judge believed I was guilty but the officer did not have evidence to support her case.

Congratulations on equating traffic court with 1st Degree Murder. You have officially failed the Turing Test.

Raw Shark addressed this, and you never really responded- he pointed out that he had participated in a murder case where not one or two but thirty witnesses placed the defendant at the scene of the crime, established his prior record, and indicated that there was cause to believe he might have destroyed evidence to protect himself. This is perhaps an extreme example but it illustrates the point: you can't simply stick your fingers in your ears and go "la-la-la, I can't HEAR you!" when dealing with cases where the forensic evidence is ambiguous.

I tend to be more willing to forgive than him. . . .After 20 to 40 years, I am generally willing to release people who show signs of having reformed back into the population. He writes stuff like "Go listen to Helter Skelter" because I have a different opinion.

No, I wrote, "Go whack off over a copy of Helter Skelter, you dumbfuck strawmanning murder groupie," because I made a valid point (that your claim that I quoted demonstrates textbook CSI Effect), and you responded with a lazy generalization that misrepresented my position, like I said in the same post. You were therefore being a dishonest weasel, and the rules here say that I get to insult you all I like if you are being a dishonest weasel. Please do try to pull your head out of your ass and get it right. Maybe it's time for a change of avatar - I'd suggest Smartass the Weasel from Who Framed Roger Rabbit?, but right now you're acting more like his henchman Stupid...

As a result, I don't always read his posts as closely as I might otherwise.

That's too bad, because if you had, you would've noticed that I pointed out that what you are currently admitting to is a clear violation of the board rules. Jackass.

[Kitsune]

See this is one of those posts which shows that you use written abuse in your posts

My hat's off to you, Sir: Not even David Copperfield would have the audacity to attempt to move a set of goalposts so far, so fast, without a live audience noticing.

What does this even mean?

Sounds like that guy got totally screwed by the system. What does that have to do with the case in question?

The prosecutor had to come up with a strange explanation to explain the lack of blood.
Same her, you have a lack of evidence of him in the crime scenem, no DNA evidence, and no blood in the car he used.

Congratulations on equating traffic court with 1st Degree Murder. You have officially failed the Turing Test.

Spoiler

You fail. . . .The evidence to convict for murder should be much higher than a traffic case.

No, I wrote, "Go whack off over a copy of Helter Skelter, you dumbfuck strawmanning murder groupie," because I made a valid point (that your claim that I quoted demonstrates textbook CSI Effect), and you responded with a lazy generalization that misrepresented my position, like I said in the same post. You were therefore being a dishonest weasel, and the rules here say that I get to insult you all I like if you are being a dishonest weasel. Please do try to pull your head out of your ass and get it right. Maybe it's time for a change of avatar - I'd suggest Smartass the Weasel from Who Framed Roger Rabbit?, but right now you're acting more like his henchman Stupid...

I read this as simple verbal abuse. You seem completely unable to deal with people disagreeing with you.

That's too bad, because if you had, you would've noticed that I pointed out that what you are currently admitting to is a clear violation of the board rules. Jackass.

Fine report me to the moderators and do not forget to add that part of the reason was because I do not enjoy reading your personal abuse.