cabiness42 Posted November 4, 2013 Share Posted November 4, 2013 I'm sure he was completely exonerated by RNA/DNA evidence or the example wouldn't have been chosen to support the position. Well, the problem in this case was that of course his blood/DNA was there because he lived there and he is also the one who discovered the crime scene and he claimed to be hugging his wife's dead body as he phoned for help, but the bigger issue was the state's decision not to pursue the other blood/DNA found at the scene during the first trial. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts