Quote:
Originally Posted by BigRedChief
yeah we know, “both sides”, right?
|
What both sides bullshit are you referring to
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigRedChief
DNA isn’t good enough for you?
If DNA isn’t good enough then we can’t convict or clear anyone in any case for anything. You can’t fake DNA.
|
This was your summation of the matter.
Again, like vail, it is too exhausting for a largely mooted point to go through the intricacies in depth for a simple CP media center thread. But in summary, DNA didn't exonerate those accused because DNA didn't convict those accused. This was the 1980s, and DNA was in its infancy. It is possible that there was all sorts of DNA all over the scene, but the only samples retained were from the cervix and the sock of the victim.
It is undisputed that this was a gang attack, not in the sense that it was a formal gang, just that multiple people were involved, from observers to people restraining her, to people assaulting her to those who actually penetrated her.
The convictions were obtained on the basis of confessions and corroborating testimony and evidence regarding the PARTICIPATION in the joint endeavor of assaulting, restraining and raping this victim.
As DNA assessment became more refined over the years, they eventually connected the specific DNA of the eventual specific perpetrator, but the prior prosecution explicitly made no representation, let alone misrepresentations regarding that specific DNA. But once that specific perp was identified, advocate pressed their pre-existing pleadings regarding the pressure the convicted were under to confess.
The courts eventually found that the pressure to confess crossed procedural bounds sufficient to merit reversal of the convictions, and that's fine. But it's still different from exoneration, particularly exoneration on the premise that DNA proved innocence.