CTID1988 said:How do the courts prove someone to be guilty of something that happened so long ago? Surely all DNA evidence is gone etc. Anybody know?
allan harper said:CTID1988 said:How do the courts prove someone to be guilty of something that happened so long ago? Surely all DNA evidence is gone etc. Anybody know?
You worried about something mate?
CTID1988 said:allan harper said:CTID1988 said:How do the courts prove someone to be guilty of something that happened so long ago? Surely all DNA evidence is gone etc. Anybody know?
You worried about something mate?
Er, no, not at all. Why? Whos said something? Go on, who? You cant prove anything. I wasnt there. She fell, i didnt push her, she fell
CTID1988 said:allan harper said:CTID1988 said:How do the courts prove someone to be guilty of something that happened so long ago? Surely all DNA evidence is gone etc. Anybody know?
You worried about something mate?
Er, no, not at all. Why? Whos said something? Go on, who? You cant prove anything. I wasnt there. She fell, i didnt push her, she fell
CTID1988 said:allan harper said:CTID1988 said:How do the courts prove someone to be guilty of something that happened so long ago? Surely all DNA evidence is gone etc. Anybody know?
You worried about something mate?
Er, no, not at all. Why? Whos said something? Go on, who? You cant prove anything. I wasnt there. She fell, i didnt push her, she fell
When there are multiple unconnected victims, they often rely on similarities in their stories to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. It's obviously much more difficult to prove anything with only one victim (as in this case), but there are numerous examples of it having happened before so it can be done. In short, I don't know!CTID1988 said:How do the courts prove someone to be guilty of something that happened so long ago? Surely all DNA evidence is gone etc. Anybody know?
baggy said:1:03:23 - [youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FbCqAJ0uN8Y[/youtube]