View Single Post
Old 12-04-2007, 12:11 PM   #5
rhertz
SBLive! Veteran
 
rhertz's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 2,834
Rep Power: 213 rhertz has a brilliant future rhertz has a brilliant future rhertz has a brilliant future rhertz has a brilliant future rhertz has a brilliant future rhertz has a brilliant future rhertz has a brilliant future rhertz has a brilliant future rhertz has a brilliant future rhertz has a brilliant future rhertz has a brilliant future
Quote:
Originally Posted by joepole View Post
I know almost nothing of the specifics of this case. Is it the type of case where "DNA testing" will "get them off?" Most murders aren't.
I don't know the specifics either. I would expand "DNA Testing" to include all modern forensics testing. I just don't think it is very easy to fool the "Dr. Baden's" of this world like maybe it once was a decade or two ago.

Quote:
Originally Posted by joepole View Post
What "clear forensics" are they trying to debunk? I am not aware whether or not they were convicted based on any forensic evidence. Again, most cases aren't.
I would think that most cases have supporting forensic evidence, even if the case was not purely "based on" it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by joepole View Post
Also, is "debunk" the right word? Debunking is a good thing, it eliminates falsehoods.
Probably not a good word... "twist" might be a better choice, again thinking back on the lawyers in the OJ case....
rhertz is offline   Reply With Quote