Quote (EndlessSky @ 6 Jul 2019 20:11)
With reference to the "confession" and "DNA evidence" you're talking about... the gentleman confessed to "holding down the woman's legs while allowing her to be raped"...
...in this case your DNA won't be inside the girl, but you are still guilty.
How is this even remotely controversial??
i think you're confusing the real confession from the guy whose dna was found on the crime scene with the one police forced out of a frightened kid without any legal representation. you seem entirely unfamiliar with the case and uncritically buying into the racist, science-denying propaganda that your cult leader is spreading because he doesn't have the character to admit he was wrong about the case and pushed for the death penalty of innocent kids...
_______________________________________________
Quote (Santara @ 6 Jul 2019 20:18)
The part where it says "repeatedly stabbed." Because the repeated stabbing is why he died. Acquitted of murder then = did not "repeatedly stab him." Try to keep up, I know it's so hard.
another idiot who doesn't have the slightest clue what they're talking about...
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-48536760Quote
The most startling moment in the trial came when a witness, Corey Scott, said that he - not Gallagher - had killed the boy. Gallagher stabbed him, said Scott. But Scott said he had then asphyxiated the boy so he would not have to go back to IS leaders who might mistreat him.
try to keep up, i know it's hard for ppl like you...