“First, I don’t understand all the low ratings. Seems sus.
Second, this is a master class on defense and creating reasonable doubt.
Third, it strikes me that there was an opportunity to check for canine dna in the lacerations. The human dna seems less likely to prove anything criminal than it does that the victim was in close contact with all of the possible suspects prior to his death, which was never in question. The dog however, if canine dna was found on his body, it would blow the whole case for the prosecution as it would show John had been in the house and therefore severely undermine the testimony of the occupants and what happened that night. Karen (such an unfortunate name now) could prove her innocence instead of just not being guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.”
Hagstoz via Apple Podcasts ·
United States of America ·
09/06/24