Jim Bob
RIP RJ
You said because of the lack of DNA below the waist does that mean different charges.
You interpret it differently what you post I guess.
I believe that a complete lack of DNA evidence will sound very different to a jury versus DNA evidence being only above the waist of the victim.
The "DNA doesn't have to be there" talk was mostly about whether the DA has a shot at a case if all DNA evidence were to be deemed inadmissible.
I was talking about how things might play out if the leaked DNA evidence were admissible.
Basically, I'm wondering if Kane's lawyer's take that the leaked DNA evidence is good for his client is true and what that could mean down the line.