What am I missing?
The trouble with DNA evidence, especially in rape cases, is that women often feel compelled to clean themselves off before getting checked.
That could possibly mean that guilty people are being let go due to the use of DNA testing, unless there's something I'm missing in all of this.
That's why the particulars of the cases always need to be looked at. DNA is only part of the story. All I've heard about this case is the DNA stuff without any of the other forensic evidence that I might need to make a logical deduction. I hope the jury doesn't have this problem.
Are people literally being let go on DNA tests alone? Because from what I understand, it is possible to do something bad without the DNA evidence being leftt, especially if someone gets rid of it.
Frankly I have no idea in this case. And frankly I don't really have much interest in it. And it seems the interest of most people here involves using the case for some political reason, one way or the other.
Perhaps the jury has a better idea of what's going on.
I'll defer to them... Wow. That's easy. That's how our system already works. Not flawless. But it's probably for the best.

__________________
"Man lives in the sunlit world of that which he believes to be reality. But unseen by most is an underworld, a place that is just as real... but not as brightly lit... A DARK SIDE!"
-opening from Tales From the Darkside