Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

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 -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: combjelly who wrote (723285)	6/29/2013 12:22:35 PM
From: i-node	1 Recommendation Recommended By Bilow Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1576955

>> As to its use in a trial, the presence of DNA is often used. There is no reason why its absence cannot be used to establish that certain events didn't happen. The presence of someone else's DNA (and absence of that of the accused or convicted) has been used as the basis for overturning convictions. But I believe it is correct to say that the mere absence of someone's DNA where it might have been expected has never been used to secure a conviction. Nor should it. The bottom line is that the absence of DNA isn't exculpatory because you never know with any degree of certainty that DNA should have been at the location that was tested.

To: combjelly who wrote (723285)	6/29/2013 3:40:19 PM
From: Bilow	1 Recommendation Recommended By i-node Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1576955

Hi combjelly; It's the job of the prosecution to prove its case. It is not the job of the defense to prove an alternative case. The onus is on the prosecution. We are innocent until we are proven guilty (by the prosecution). The fact that the prosecution claims that it is unable to prove us innocent is not taken as proof that we are guilty. -- Carl P.S. I have no idea what went on in the Zimmerman case. But it is a fact of law that the defense is never held responsible for evidence that the prosecution is unable to provide. The defense is not required to state or prove a theory of the case. It's the prosecution which has the burden of proof. If you've talked much with a police officer you will discover that "finding evidence that will exonerate a defendant" is not on their job list. They provide evidence for the prosecution only and they always give their evidence to the prosecutor, not the defendant. The prosecution is required to give exonerating evidence to the defense in some situations, but the prosecution is never required to defend the defendant. DNA on Martin's fingernails is evidence that could be used to convict Martin of assault (were he alive). But plenty of people have been convicted of assault without DNA evidence for it. And I'm quite sure that plenty of people have punched the crap out of someone without picking up DNA evidence that would be detected after they'd been worked on by paramedics, rained on, etc. DNA evidence is not that easy to obtain. This is a dirty planet. Similarly, fingerprints are not that easy to locate.