The whole thing is tragic, but this part worried me:
“… [Lopez] suggested the presence of Robinson’s DNA didn’t mean DuBoise wasn’t also at the murder scene.”
With no other evidence of the innocent man being at the scene, and hard evidence of the presence of another, unrelated man being there instead, she still wants to set the threshold of innocence at “prove DuBoise wasn’t there!”
Maybe someone with legal training can clarify, but it seems to me that under that standard anyone without a rock-solid alibi is automatically a suspect, even if their is no grounds for suspicion otherwise.
The whole thing is tragic, but this part worried me:
With no other evidence of the innocent man being at the scene, and hard evidence of the presence of another, unrelated man being there instead, she still wants to set the threshold of innocence at “prove DuBoise wasn’t there!”
Maybe someone with legal training can clarify, but it seems to me that under that standard anyone without a rock-solid alibi is automatically a suspect, even if their is no grounds for suspicion otherwise.