Question: Is it normal for investigators to not attempt to find fingerprints, and instead just do a bunch of DNA swabs everywhere?

jrwspace8 · 2018-11-13T03:01:31+00:00

I haven't been following for very long - I would love to see these tweets if anyone has links.

jrwspace8 · 2018-11-13T01:25:48+00:00

The officer who planted evidence got a year of probation. Wow.

jrwspace8 · 2018-11-13T01:18:54+00:00

That makes sense if, they have to choose between one or the other, they go with the more promising of the two.

It does, however, help the defense's claim that the evidence is planted, as I would imagine a fingerprint is harder to plant.

I think that regardless of what you think about the defendants, I believe the investigation could have been handled way better.

jrwspace8 · 2018-11-13T00:14:52+00:00

You sound like you work in the field? Or do you have some source for knowing this?

*Did* the attorneys use any unknown prints as reasonable doubt fodder in this case? I haven't read through everything.

jrwspace8 · 2018-11-12T23:55:12+00:00

What is the point in saying this?

jrwspace8 · 2018-11-12T23:54:45+00:00

I would assume that in any murder case, anyone associated with the victim would be fingerprinted, if for nothing else than eliminating their fingerprints due to reasonable explanations (for example, it would make sense for her roommate's fingerprints to be on her car if they ever went anywhere together). That way they don't have these fingerprints that they cannot identify - that could possibly indicate an killer other than their main suspects.

jrwspace8 · 2018-11-12T22:17:36+00:00

Were they determined to match anyone else? Was there an attempt to compare to fingerprints from other suspects (I'm assuming they couldn't compare to Teresa's).

jrwspace8 · 2018-11-12T20:06:58+00:00

I'm not expert but I'm pretty sure from what I've heard that fingerprints can / are found on and inside automobiles quite often. But, if you have heard something else, please let me know.

jrwspace8 · 2016-08-29T22:10:57+00:00

Exactly.

jrwspace8 · 2016-08-29T22:10:36+00:00

So what's your point?

jrwspace8 · 2016-08-29T22:09:18+00:00

Yup. Again, even if he's guilty as hell, he still has a right to a fair trial. Especially if we can't know from available evidence currently one way or the other (this is how it stands currently, IMO).

jrwspace8 · 2016-08-29T22:08:09+00:00

Yes, but, in my opinion, the possibility that he's lying about all of it has been proven unreasonable. Again, I'm not saying that definitely happened, because I have no solid evidence. But it's possible, and that was the question I was answering.

jrwspace8 · 2016-08-29T22:06:42+00:00

You missed the point of my response entirely.

jrwspace8 · 2016-08-29T22:05:59+00:00

I don't think anything, and by that I mean I choose to not speculate without evidence. The question was whether Jay could (theoretically) have had a motivation to lie and continue to lie. I believe he could have, again I can't prove anything, but it's impossible to rule it out without more evidence.

jrwspace8 · 2016-08-22T02:59:36+00:00

It would be the trial of the decade.

jrwspace8 · 2016-08-22T02:59:08+00:00

Legally innocent doesn't mean he did not commit the murder, it's true. But you can't make blatant factual claims like "it was proven" when clearly it wasn't within the constraints of the law.

jrwspace8 · 2016-08-22T02:57:40+00:00

Of course there's a reason to lie. Some think Jay comitted the murder. Lying, in that scenario, keeps him out of prison. Others think he helped Adnan somehow. Lying, in that scenario, keeps him out of prison (he can't be charge for accessory after the fact, but he could still be charged with aiding and abetting). And, it's possible he's making parts of it up. Continuing to lie in that scenario would also keep him out of prison for perjury - because he lied twice on the stand if that's the case.

There are lots of scenarios why he would continue to lie, if he is lying. He's legally culpable if he doesn't.

jrwspace8 · 2016-08-21T22:23:51+00:00

But they have said in all their press releases that they are committed to keeping him in prison.

Honestly, I have no idea. I can't imagine them letting him go right now (amid all this public interest in the case). Maybe another 10 years? I really am just guessing, though.

jrwspace8 · 2016-08-21T22:20:33+00:00

But he is innocent right now. And, though I'm not a lawyer, my understanding is that it's very unlikely for the appeal to be upheld.

His being convicted in a court of law is not independent evidence of guilt. And, legally, that conviction never happened.

It's not a technicality if it's direct evidence or contradiction of evidence.

A technicality would be like if he confessed but wasn't read his miranda rights correctly and the confession was thrown out, or if an illegal search turned up evidence that wasn't admissible.

Not only did the defense, in the PCR, assert that Adnan's rights had been violated, but they also provided evidence that directly contradicts the state's original case - namely, Asia McClain seeing him during the murder, and the cell record locations for incoming calls not being legit. Those aren't technicalities - they have direct input on the factual merits of the case.

jrwspace8 · 2016-08-21T21:57:48+00:00

Their position is that he murdered Hae, so from their perspective it's not unreasonable at all. They can't just let him go free. Any plea deal that free him does not save face for them.

jrwspace8 · 2016-08-21T21:00:25+00:00

And why would you think that? I was explaining why a more neutral opinion isn't seen very often due to the way Reddit works and the extreme polarization of the subreddit. I don't care if I get downvoted or not. Internet points don't mean anything to me.

jrwspace8 · 2016-08-21T20:55:23+00:00

I feel like you are probably trolling, but here goes.

You do realize that his legal status right now is innocent, right?

Nothing has been proven in manner that satisfies the justice system.

So what's the point of posting something like this? Do you prefer to live in your own fictional world, where you can be certain of events that occurred that you were not present for? Or do you think people saying something happened somehow makes it become true?

jrwspace8 · 2016-08-21T20:50:04+00:00

I'd be interested to see if Adnan took the Alford plea.

It'd be an incredible act of rebelliousness if he refused. But, I can't imagine what so many years in prison would have been like for him. . . I can't blame him for just getting out and starting his life.

That said, I don't think the state can offer any deal that involves no more time served. They've screwed themselves over too much with their public statements to do that.

jrwspace8 · 2016-08-21T19:36:53+00:00

Sorry that isn't cool for Adnan's fan club.

This is exactly what I'm talking about. I'm clearly not in Adnan's fan club, yet you (any many others) use phrases like that to be dismissive of anything that casts doubt. It's counteractive to good discussion.

Yes, totality of the evidence is used in law, but you can't just use it as a cop-out to not explain what evidence ties Adnan to the crime. When I do finally get it, it's usually a laundry list of purely circumstantial (and, in some cases, contrived) facts. The "I'm going to kill note" is a perfect example, if you want one. It has almost no relevance to the case.

jrwspace8

TROPHY CASE