On the basis of evidence presented in court by the Crown, I would say he is guilty, JLM. His sister's testimony sure didn't do him any good especially as she tried to change her story.
blood and dna in the motor home?
his motor home?
bet you will find traces of blood and DNA in EVERY used motor home
I agree, I think Stupid is the correct answer! How blood and D.N.A. being found in the motor home can be construed as circumstantial evidence beats me. But being a diplomatic kind of guy I have to judge him innocent until proved guilty. (I'd say being late for court four times is indisputable proof of stupid)
If indeed he consumed the amount of drugs that witnesses recounted during the trial, I imagine his brain is probably not functioning at optimum capabilities which would explain the rambling interview and why he would ignore his lawyer's wishes to keep silent.
LOLNo, the victims' motor home, of course.......................HIS blood and DNA!
You must have misunderstood.The first two for sure. He left D.N.A. he drove their vehicle, he used their cell phone - if he didn't kill them he knows who did, and as we were taught as kids if you are present in the commission of a crime you are just as guilty as the perpetrators. GUILTY as charged!
You must have misunderstood.
Try this simple exercise. The victim of a murder is, pretty much by definition, present in the commission of the murder. Does that mean the victim is guilty of murder?
Your understanding of conspiracy and accessory is. . . amusing.
DNA is the one thing that does not lie in courts.