The woman, according to Escobar, York’s attorney, refused a full medical exam and would not give blood and urine samples. She insisted, oddly, that they focus on her underwear and a tampon she was using at the time of the alleged incident. The tampon was never found.
A DNA swab of her underwear, taken from the front material, found York’s DNA. Normally this would be the nail in the coffin for someone accused — and at first it looked that way for York. But his attorneys argued that the DNA — known as touch DNA — could have gotten on her underwear some other way. You see, touch DNA refers to the skin cells one leaves on an object after they have touched it. York’s attorneys argued the woman rubbed her driver’s license (which York had touched during the traffic stop) on her underwear to transfer the DNA.Her story to investigating officers kept changing. Worse:
One of the detectives assigned to the case never interviewed the officers who first spoke to York’s accuser at the hospital. This detective didn’t even read their reports until her deposition with Escobar, the attorney said. This detective also refused to record the accuser’s interviews because, she said, she might change her story later and this would not allow her to do so. [emphasis added]You can see why the DA dropped the charges, and how innocent people get tried for, and convicted of rape. If the accuser's story changes, that might create doubt as to the truthfulness of the accusation. Not recording an interview to allow her to change her story is clearly bad police work.
And that touch DNA evidence has all sorts of opportunity's for misuse. We found Mr. A's DNA on the murder weapon. Perhaps he touched it in a gun store a day or two before Mr. B came in to buy it. Admittedly, gun stores usually wipe down the gun (at least to get the drool marks off), but touch DNA seems a pretty questionable form of evidence.
Oh and Tampa PD won't rehire this guy. I am guessing the SJWs now run that department.
No comments:
Post a Comment