A dishonest undercover cop who was "working" (see, "infiltatred" snd trying to misrepresent me as is their M.O) at IBM of all places and befriended me, once said to me, "if they REALLY wanted to get you, they would just plant your DNA at a crime scene". I was particularly skittish at the time, in my 20s and I have never forgotten that comment nor forgiven him for injecting that fear, unfounded or not, into my spirit.
Okay .. how does that relate to this investigation?
You suggested that DNA technology advances has you less inclined to believe a man who says he is innocent of a capital crime. I might suggest that there are many nefarious people in policing who could easily plant someones DNA if the wanted to "get someone" as my dishonest cop coworker suggested. It might be extremely rare, it also might depend on who they are targetting...
What percentage of cases where DNA evidence is provided involves "nefarious people" submitting false DNA or planting DNA to "get someone?"
How could we possibly know the answer to this? I know this, I have serious trust issues after what I have experienced and been made aware of in the Canadian system, as would anyone if they lived my life I assure you. If Canada is this creepy , there may be pockets of similar people in the U.S who are just as creepy and dishonest. To what degree? Who knows
I could make the claim that DNA evidence is withheld to influence the outcome as well .. so it's a moot point.
You can make that claim, and in a particular case your point is valid. It is not a moot point at all. People are railroaded in courts all the time. Sadly, there are thousands that are railroaded. People who do not have the money for the best attorneys.
It's a silly argument to claim that nefarious DNA samples are being manipulated in order to convict guilty parties .. I can make the claim it happens rarely .. if ever .. and you must substantiate and / or justify your position.
You can make all the claims you want, yet you can never substantiate any of them, ever.
You're suggesting DNA evidence is skewed on a regular basis?
I do not mean to suggest that DNA or any evidence is skewed on a regular basis.
Is a minute chance of skewed results from law enforcement a selling point to stop death penalty sentences?
If there is any chance, minute or not, the results must be evaluated.
Death penalty results, given the extreme, scientific outcomes for DNA and other personably identifiable detail, should minimize doubt and accelerate death penalty outcomes.
