This question is for true crime scene investigators - not fans of the CBS show. I know that it takes a lot longer time to process evidence and crime scene than the TV show indicates. I have done research on actual crime scenes before.
Has there ever been a real instance as discribed above?
If so, in what case and was it a piece of physical or trace evidence?
Is there information available to the public about the case?
Thank you to any and all responses!
2006-09-16 13:49:33 · 7 answers · asked by Oklahoman 6 in Politics & Government ➔ Law Enforcement & Police
I'm sure there are many cases like that.
I would say DNA.....look how it changed the Jon Bonet Ramsey case.....DNA didn't match....their "prime suspect" was nothing more than a creepy pedophile.
Look at how DNA(single pc of evidence) changed the Kobe Bryant case....re: other DNA(besides KB) in her panties....obviously no new "prime suspect"...but certainly a single pc of evidence changed the case.
But even better......DNA has freed a few from death row.....they test the DNA.....tests now conclude he wasn't the one...but they now have DNA of the person that did perpetrate the crime....and a new prime suspect.
http://www.innocenceproject.org
2006-09-16 14:11:10 · answer #1 · answered by lethallolita 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Before DNA was widely made use of, say 15 years ago or so. I would think that blood typing was used as sufficient evidence to connect potential perps to crimes. Just because someone has the same type of blood that might be found during the investigation of a crime doesn't mean that the DNA would be the same. If you were to go back and compare the number of cases that blood typing was used to connect people to a crime scene. Then were to do DNA comparisons on the same evidence the person connected to a crime scene could easily change based on DNA testing. I think Barry Scheck and his organization has had this happen in the past. Off the top of my head I can't think of any specific cases though.
2006-09-16 15:14:30 · answer #2 · answered by InDyBuD2002 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
as an atheist, i have heard all of them... a million. i do not favor info when I easily trust. 2. you won't be able to disprove god, so it really is a 50-50 shot. 3. look at each and every of the layout contained in the universe. it had to were created by employing a perfect intelligence! 4. if i'm incorrect, i lose not something. if you're incorrect, you lose each and every thing. 5. i will't trust that this all exceeded off by employing random possibility. 6. evolution is a theory, not a reality. 7. jesus's resurrection has quite some historic info. 8. without faith, this is not achieveable to be moral. on the grounds that we are moral beings, there might want to be a god. 9. many intellectuals are non secular. hence, god exists. 10. the ontological argument: the definition of god necessitates his personal existence. ... and the record is going on. i'm positive i neglected some, yet i havent neglected many who theists might want to guage "stronger" than any of the above. they are all undesirable, for sure, as slightly rational theory will educate.
2016-11-27 19:29:37 · answer #3 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
we even have cases in the US where DNA evidence has proved the person convicted is not the person in jail and the person in jail gets released ( sometimes)
Also in the Ramsey murder the DNA evidence again showed the father did not do it, and it showed the last suspect did not do it.
2006-09-16 14:09:35 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
There are several instances in India. It is better to go through the Law digests containing decisions of various courts in this regard.
2006-09-16 14:01:18 · answer #5 · answered by vk j 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I would guess it has happened millions of times.
To ask for one specific case is inane.
2006-09-16 13:57:23 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
DNA
2006-09-16 15:15:15 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋