Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Mom says police deceived her to get her DNA and charge her son with murder

I am not an attorney. A victim is found robbed, sexually violated, and murdered by gunshot has semen found on or in her body. I don't know that would really be circumstantial evidence, seems more along the lines of physical evidence. Unless his lawyers can convince the court that he was in a relationship with the victim and had recently been with her he is in a heap of trouble. The DNA when they take his will put him way past reasonable doubt. I guess physical evidence can be classed as circumstantial but enough circumstantial evidence can sure convict you and execute you.

DNA itself is actually circumstantial evidence. Really strong evidence but you must infer that dna with the crime scene profile is similar to the dna of suspect. It is statistically possible that DNA is same from two different individuals. DNA should be only one piece of puzzle.

PeeDeeRiver: You are missing the point or misdirecting your irrational contempt?
If "you" or "I" commit a heinous crime "you" and "I" deserve to be caught by the police who may use (as authorized by the courts, that I know of, for many decades now - devious tactics!)!
"I" have absolutely nothing to worry about because "I" am not going to be committing any heinous crimes - I advise "you" to do the same thing!
Again, I say, great police work.
Hold into the wind
VarmintGuy

I am trying to imagine how they could "secretly take semen from an innocent person" and retroactively "find" it at a crime scene 17 years ago.

As to the deception in getting samples from the family, the true and honest explanation would be that they are trying to eliminate innocent people from the list of suspects. However, the straightforward approach would have been to get a sample from the suspect himself. Naturally, he would have refused the request, thereby opening an avenue for a warrant to obtain same. That's in my non-lawyer non-police opinion.

KRAKMT: I disagree completely with your "definition" of "circumstantial evidence!
DNA is NOT "circumstantial evidence" it is EVIDENCE!
Circumstantial evidence is Rastus being in the same city block at about the same time as a crime was committed in that city block - its not direct evidence. but it is "circumstantial evidence" and as that it does have a certain amount of evidentiary value in a court proceeding or when being consider by prosecutors when deciding on whether or not to bring criminal charges against Rastus!
Hold into the wind
VarmintGuy
P.S.: Maybe this will help from Wikipedia = Direct evidence supports the truth of an assertion (in criminal law, an assertion of guilt or of innocence) directly, i.e., without an intervening inference. Circumstantial evidence, by contrast, consists of a fact or set of facts which, if proven, will support the creation of an inference that the matter asserted is true.

What is the chance that my DNA would match someone else that is not my identical twin? From what I read it would be millions if not billions. And for some reason the police already suspected this man with no DNA evidence.

(1) "Circumstantial evidence" is that which tends to establish a fact by proving another and which, though true, does not of itself conclusively establish that fact but affords an inference or presumption of its existence.

(2) (a) "Conclusive evidence" is that which the law does not permit to be contradicted.

(b) No evidence is by law made conclusive unless so declared by statute.

(3) "Corroborative evidence" is additional evidence of a different character to the same point.

(4) "Cumulative evidence" is additional evidence of the same character to the same point.

(5) "Direct evidence" is that which proves a fact without an inference or presumption and which in itself, if true, establishes that fact.

(6) "Prima facie evidence" is that which proves a particular fact until contradicted and overcome by other evidence.

DNA merely proves that a person with a DNA profile of xxxxxxx was at the crime scene. It is circumstantial that defendant has a similar profile of xxxxxxxx.
It is not direct evidence of the crime.

Just like semen at the crime scene is circumstantial evidence of rape, not direct evidence- it is possible that semen could have gotten on the victim another way. As a defense would argue.

The end justifies the means. Hmmm. Sounds like the Dems on red flag laws and gun confiscation. Line up boys it’s ok because the end justifies the means. WOW! [bleep]. Ed k

Not all ends and not all means, Ed. Keep some perspective here.

Also, a poor analogy. Red Flag laws are directed at HYPOTHETICAL violators of crime. This and similar acts are aimed at actual suspects of committed crimes.

I’m just saying the law should apply to all. I was on a jury trial which had a video of the detectives questioning and lying to a guy. Now the guy wasn’t real bright so they got him to confess to a crime he was not convicted of. 12 of us were very disturbed by the video. I am as anti criminal as you can get but if the police are not held to standards they will get lower and lower on treatment of everybody including you. Ed k

That’s how I read it. Defense lawyers will push hard at a suppression hearing, but from what the “news” is “reporting,” it looks like two detectives caught a murderer by using their people skills.