I agree; I read the entire thing, expecting a detailed explanation (as in the article about the Glossip case) and we are told only that there was no DNA evidence and that the defense claims that the witnesses can't be trusted. (Now, there's a first!)
There is no basis on which to form an opinion one way or another from this story.
I agree; I read the entire thing, expecting a detailed explanation (as in the article about the Glossip case) and we are told only that there was no DNA evidence and that the defense claims that the witnesses can't be trusted. (Now, there's a first!)
There is no basis on which to form an opinion one way or another from this story.
I agree; I read the entire thing, expecting a detailed explanation (as in the article about the Glossip case) and we are told only that there was no DNA evidence and that the defense claims that the witnesses can't be trusted. (Now, there's a first!)
There is no basis on which to form an opinion one way or another from this story.