|
The_Jazz: You are completely right about how none of us really know what evidence is really out there. However, when you hear what the DA has said it leads me to believe that he really doesn't have a leg to stand on. He went after the DNA because he knew it "would be bulletproof". Those were his statements. After the DNA came back negative, he hasn't said much, why? Because he's trying to find the 3rd Suspect and there isn't much for him to say. Again this is just what I think about the case. There's nothing wrong with trying to analyze a case and see what is going on, especially when someone (me) lives so close to the whole ordeal. I am almost amazed at the veracity the lawyers are taking, could they be fooling me? Possibly, but I just know that if they had any doubt they would be more reserved in most cases.
Also, everything I've seen has the pictures timestamped, not to mention the video surveillance and receipts. I've read and listened to both sides of what has been brought out so far and that's how I make my assumptions. I may be making hasty assumptions but I like to analyze cases and see where I was right or wrong. I always wanted to be a lawyer, so I guess that's just how I live vicariously through the actual lawyers. :shrug:
I'm anxiously awaiting for the Motion of Discovery to be filed so all the cards are on the table. This will give a more rounded look at the case.
|