SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: Elroy who wrote (275591)2/20/2006 2:20:02 AM
From: Amy J   of 1577400
 
No, SJMN is presenting articles conveying how too many defendents had evidence withheld, just so prosecutors could slam it to them.

RE: "That may be correct, but in your example it sounded like the judge tossed out evidence because it could be tainted evidence which, if not tainted, would prove murder. The police had the car for ~24 days in order to get some fibers which should take an hour to scrape off a seat, right? Having the car for 25 days and then finding the fiber makes it suspicious, so the evidence sounds dodgy."

I see your point. That's a perspective I hadn't thought of, because I'm assuming the police didn't tamper with evidence to set someone up as guilty. I would think they have video cameras on their labs, that could prove tampering was (or was not) done? I don't think they should let a guy go, just because of a technicality, if they can prove they didn't tamper with the evidence. I'd rather see the judge make the police prove they didn't tamper with the evidence, than to toss the entire evidence out.
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News