Reply #52: Filling in the blanks

[jberryhill]

No defendants' DNA found on or in the victim means... they used condoms.

The victim's missing shoe means... they secreted it away because it was somehow damning evidence.

No mustache on Evans, despite the victim's statement that he had one, means... he wore a fake mustache.

And now,

No toxicology report means... the defense and the hospital have colluded to hide it.

I'm not calling anyone a liar. A conviction in this case is going to have to rest on something other than the utter absence of physical evidence which corroborates the accusation coupled gap-filling by resolving all doubt against the defendants on the basis of conspiracy hypotheses.

The only thing mentioned by anyone so far that can be portrayed in the best light possible to show any physical contact between any defendant and the victim is the partial DNA of Evans on the artificial fingernail retrieved from Evans' bathroom trashcan. If a jury believes that Evans' DNA just might be found on something retrieved from his own bathroom trashcan, and the prosecutor's own expert is going to have to admit that possibility, then that piece of the puzzle flies out the window.

The best thing that is going to come from Kim Roberts is that the players were jerks, but she, and not a defense attorney speaking for her, is very clear that she cannot say that a sexual assault took place.

We can discuss the things that have been reported, and certainly take into account the sources of those reports, but if this case continues to hinge on "something Nifong has that he didn't mention in 70 statements" then I'm stumped as to what might make out a proof beyond a reasonable doubt that these three defendants are guilty of the crime with which they have been charged.