"It's obvious that he cleaned the gun, because there was no evidence of recently, recent firing," a prosecutor told the jury. Washington Post, May 1 2010
I'm fascinated by this piece of reasoning by the prosecution in the case of Former Baltimore police sergeant James A. Kulbicki who was charged with murdering his 22-year-old mistress in 1995 in Maryland.
The prosecutor had just admitted that there was no evidence that Kulbicki's gun had recently been fired even though they claimed he used it to murder Gina Marie Neuslein, who was suing him for support for a child she claimed he had fathered. Kulbicki also had numerous witnesses who testified that he was somewhere else at the time of the murder.
Is this how evidence works? It's as if they said, his denying it proves he is guilty because why would he deny it if he wasn't guilty?
In fact, Kopera, the discredited expert witness, admitted in his notes that the gun had not been recently fired, nor had it been cleaned to remove evidence of recent firings.
Who cares, say the police. He's guilty. We know it.
All Contents Copyright
© Bill Van Dyk
2010 All Rights Reserved