Texas might be good.mamabearCali wrote:Yet another conflict of interest. Perhaps a new venue is in order.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/03c7b/03c7bfe8299fcd0935fc4f55d980c9f21c09cd74" alt="Texas Flag :txflag:"
Moderators: carlson1, Charles L. Cotton
Texas might be good.mamabearCali wrote:Yet another conflict of interest. Perhaps a new venue is in order.
Don't 'ya just hate people with short-timers syndrome?Ameer wrote:That's only four months from now. How much of a speedy and public trial can you accomplish in a mere 122 days?
While the Miami Gardens teenager’s supporters saw the state’s crime lab blood-work results as proof that an innocent teen was attached, experts say the evidence won’t produce any courtroom bombshells for either side.
As I recall—perhaps incorrectly—Zimmerman's testimony wasn't that Trayvon Martin grabbed Zimmerman's gun......it was that he saw it and tried to grab Zimmerman's gun. He may very well not have gotten any of his own DNA on the gun because he never actually got his hands on it. In fact, if he had gotten his hands on the gun, Zimmerman may well have been found dead instead of the other way around.Frankie wrote:More info released..
http://www.bnd.com/2012/09/19/2329693/n ... found.html
While the Miami Gardens teenager’s supporters saw the state’s crime lab blood-work results as proof that an innocent teen was attached, experts say the evidence won’t produce any courtroom bombshells for either side.
More in the link above.
In March, NewsBusters broke the story about NBC's Today show airing an edited audiotape of George Zimmerman's 911 call the day he shot Trayvon Martin in Florida.
On Thursday, the New York Post reported Zimmerman is suing the Peacock Network.
According to the Post, the complaint will be filed against NBC News President Steve Capus and correspondent Ron Allen who was the Today reporter involved in the March 27 broadcast.
A source told the Post, “The suit will be filed imminently against NBC and its news executives. The network’s legal department has put everybody in the news department involved with this incident on notice, telling them not to comment.”
What makes you think we don't? We are shedding skin cells all the time and you're also going to leave some skin cells on just about anything you touch.baldeagle wrote:Note to Benjamin Crump. People don't shed DNA like feathers in a fight.
The problem with this is that it is true, yet may not yield results. (for reference, I was a forensic investigator for a police department). True, we may not shed DNA like feathers in a fight but "touch DNA" has been something used widely in recent years because we always leave something behind. Simple science is in "Locard's Principle", which essentially says you will always leave something and take something from a crime scene (but that doesn't mean the police with always FIND it). In the state I was in, touch DNA would ONLY be analyzed if it was a felony due to time and financial constraints. The great thing was, you could "dust" for fingerprints (and even "lift" them) and THEN swab for touch DNA and perhaps yield a result.C-dub wrote:What makes you think we don't? We are shedding skin cells all the time and you're also going to leave some skin cells on just about anything you touch.baldeagle wrote:Note to Benjamin Crump. People don't shed DNA like feathers in a fight.
Good to be here. I lurk daily but thought I should try and be more active on the board.Skiprr wrote:Welcome, sfemti33. And thanks for contributing your expertise.
Also welcome. My knowledge of the collection of DNA is limited and my knowledge of the handling and testing is old. I did a little back in the middle 90's and almost took a job at a DNA lab in the late 90's, but I got a better offer from a different kind of lab, which took my career in a slightly different direction.sfemti33 wrote:Good to be here. I lurk daily but thought I should try and be more active on the board.Skiprr wrote:Welcome, sfemti33. And thanks for contributing your expertise.