All one need do to invalidate DNA evidence in most cases is simply state one has been at the location the DNA was found ie ,home, car , etc . Unless it can be proven one wasn't ever there ,a tall order, DNA is useless as a prosecution tool.
Correct. Proving a case based on DNA only can be very very difficult. It is only one piece of evidence. With that said, if I'm found suspiciously dead in my office and eye95's DNA is found, he will be going to the big house.All one need do to invalidate DNA evidence in most cases is simply state one has been at the location the DNA was found ie ,home, car , etc . Unless it can be proven one wasn't ever there ,a tall order, DNA is useless as a prosecution tool.
Correct. Proving a case based on DNA only can be very very difficult. It is only one piece of evidence. With that said, if I'm found suspiciously dead in my office and eye95's DNA is found, he will be going to the big house.
1. I have said or done nothing to indicate I would kill you. I don’t like you. I think you don’t contribute to discussions as much as you detract from them. But only a warped mind would think that anyone would kill over such.
2. Stating the way things OUGHT to be does not logically require citing cases. Stating the way things are (or trying to convince others that one is a lawyer) does.
Oh, yeah, and that was another jerk post from you. Grow up.
We are waiting for your legal analysis of Carpenter v. United States as to how it would/could relate to DNA and privacy. How about a timeline on when we will see that analysis.And the jerk posts continue.
Anyone care to discuss the topic at hand?
Just what I thought, you are all talk and no substance.
1. I have said or done nothing to indicate I would kill you. I don’t like you. I think you don’t contribute to discussions as much as you detract from them. But only a warped mind would think that anyone would kill over such.
2. Stating the way things OUGHT to be does not logically require citing cases. Stating the way things are (or trying to convince others that one is a lawyer) does.
Oh, yeah, and that was another jerk post from you. Grow up.
Eye95 you truly have audacity to challenge this member’s veracity ~ really?
You are truly unbelievable eye95, you don’t know jack squat about this new member’s personal history/background and yet you just basically called them a liar, of course you prefaced your liar statement with the caveat your not a lawyer!
FreedomVA - Are you saying that you have standing?
Yes and i will do all i can to fight for my standing even if i lose
IANAL, but I believe that thinking you possibly might be wronged sometime does not give you standing to sue.
What are you talking about? Nothing in what he said questioned the member's veracity. He just talked about what it takes to have standing to sue.
You haven't said anything.
As far as done anything you may well have a voodoo doll of COL you stick needles in . ROFL .
Guys, i know we all have our own difference of opinions, but as Rodney King asked "Can't we all get along?" In the end, all of us on this forum are fighting for the same cause. Thank you and have a wonderful day.
But, opinions need to have substance.Ghost1958, I hear you loud and clear, i am with you. But, i also believe when we ridicule another members, we are pushing away much needed allies to our cause. I rather absorbed as much info i can from another member's and screen out what i need and discard what i don't. Everyone should have the right to express their opinion even if i don't agree with the logic.