On 2013-05-14 17:07, Al Angello wrote:
He is two years younger than I am.

On 2013-05-14 17:08, Woland wrote:
For robbery or for murder?

On 2013-05-14 19:30, LobowolfXXX wrote:
I'm pretty sure wanting to get out of prison is a partial motivation.

On 2013-05-14 22:05, tomsk192 wrote:
Since the Header is "O.J.", it is not totally off piste to mention salvaging a small Bronze of a foal, today, from a bequest. The artist's mark on the Bronze is "OJ".

OJ Simpson? Most people I know think DNA evidence of a billion to one is ample to prove a case beyond reasonable doubt. Other people feel differently.

I hope the man accused of April Jones' murder doesn't benefit from similar idiocy on the part of a jury.

http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-22510575

A billion to one.

However egregious the police officers involved are, evidence is evidence.

Samples from bloody shoeprints leading away from the bodies and from the back gate of the condominium were tested for DNA matches.[10] Initial polymerase chain reaction testing did not rule out Simpson as a suspect. In more precise restriction fragment length polymorphism tests matches were found between Simpson's blood and blood samples taken from the crime scene (both the shoe prints in blood and the gate samples).[9][10]

Police criminalist Dennis Fung testified that this DNA evidence put Simpson at Nicole Brown's townhouse at the time of the murders. But in cross-examination by Barry Scheck, which lasted eight full days, most of the DNA evidence was questioned. Dr. Robin Cotton, of Cellmark Diagnostics, testified for six days.[15] Blood evidence had been tested at two separate laboratories, each conducting different tests.[15]

Despite that safeguard, it emerged during the cross-examination of Fung and the other laboratory scientists that the police scientist Andrea Mazzola (who collected blood samples from Simpson to compare with evidence from the crime scene) was a trainee who carried the vial of Simpson's blood around in her lab coat pocket for nearly a day before handing it over as an exhibit. While two errors had been found in the history of DNA testing at Cellmark, one of the testing laboratories, in 1988 and 1989, the errors were found during quality control tests and had not occurred since.[15] In the 1988 test, one of the companies hired for DNA consulting by Simpson's defense also made the same error.[9] What should have been the prosecution's strong point became their weak link amid accusations that bungling police technicians handled the blood samples with such a degree of incompetence as to render the delivery of accurate and reliable DNA results almost impossible.