From: Kari
Date: 7/9/01
Time: 2:07:40 AM
I am not speaking of the tabloids account either. In a normal murder trial what evidence is introduced for this sort of case? A stabbing and mutalation. I'd think a lot of areas were left out because the relied on evidence easily discounted to a jury but not the public, DNA. The jury heard what need to be heard about how it was tainted, they saw the gloves did not fitas well as the difference in the blood spots photographed differently. I bet the difference with land markers to show, which way the blood spatter went in regards to the blood spots at Rockingham and Bundy. Even those who watched didn't pick up much on that. But there were major holes in the case that need filled. Things that the courts don't requre now for conviction. Conviction no longer requires a reasonable theory. Just everyday plain common sense reasoning. It gets scary how a normal event can look criminal.