Home News Events Bands Labels Venues Pics MP3s Radio Show Reviews Releases Buy$tuff Forum   Classifieds   News   Localband   Shows   Show Pics   Polls      OT Threads   Other News   Movies   VideoGames   Videos   TV   Sports   Gear   /r/   Food      New Thread   New Poll Miscellaneous Links E-mail Search login

New site? Maybe some day. Username: SPAM Filter: re-type this (values are 0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,A,B,C,D,E, or F) Message: UBB enabled. HTML disabled Spam Filtering enabledIcons: (click image to insert) Show All - pop Select Color orange orange-red crimson red firebrick dark red green limegreen teal silver sea-green deeppink tomato coral purple indigo burlywood sandy brown sienna chocolate FONTXXSmallXSmallSmallMediumLargeXLXXL :DG: A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z Char† ‡ ‰ ♠ ♣ ♥ ♦ ‾ ← ↑ → ↓ ™ – —   ¡ ¢ £ ¤ ¥ ¦ § ¨ © ª « ¬ ­ ® ¯ ° ± ² ³ ´ µ ¶ · ¸ ¹ º » ¼ ½ ¾ ¿ À Á Â Ã Ä Å Æ Ç È É Ê Ë Ì Í Î Ï Ð Ñ Ò Ó Ô Õ Ö × Ø Ù Ú Û Ü Ý Þ ß à á â ã ä å æ ç è é ê ë ì í î ï ð ñ ò ó ô õ ö ÷ ø ù ú û ü ý þ ÿ b i u  add: url  image  video(?) : post by demondave at 2010-03-06 12:13:40 Yeti said [orig][quote] samYam said [orig][quote] �Proof of actual innocence requires more than his exclusion as the source of a handful of biological material that is not dispositive of the identity of a killer,� the judge wrote. uh, what? i'd call DNA pretty solid evidence. I don't know the full case, but from what was posted above it seems that there is not DNA evidence. It sounds like they are saying that since there is no DNA evidence tying them directly, they can not be held as guilty.

[default homepage]

[print][

9:00:13pm Jun 02,2024 load time 0.00680 secs/10 queries]

[search]

[refresh page]