|
Not only that, but the knife that was one of the key elements in the first conviction was retested and no DNA from the victim was found on it. I imagine you could test the knives in my kitchen and they would also pass.
I'm really curious what they used to convict her this time, since nothing I have read offers any evidence of her being there during the commission of the crime. If the appeal threw out the original conviction because there really wasn't any direct evindence that tied her to the crime, and now they have less evidence than before, what am I missing?
JR
|