Craven de Kere wrote:DNA's margin of error is very very slight. This is why it's such powerful evidence. If it were as faulty as you seem to think it can be it would not be such a case maker or breaker.
It does have it's drawbacks and they do happen very frequently. It's not in the DNA itself though, the problem lies in how the DNA is obtained or handled. The reason that so many people were pardoned is because the cases weren't reexamined until years later.
Butrflynet wrote:What is it that will convince you that we have the right man?
When somebody does it, I'll tell you.
amethyst wrote:What will you do if it is the fake Saddam?
I think that we should put him into power.
cjhsa wrote:
[Saddam's] language was quite colorful and his demeanor quite forceful. They had no doubt who he was.
A way with words does not make a leader, take Bush for example...
cjhsa wrote:People like Frank and JL just can't stand the fact that Bush is doing a great job, and is very popular, that we caught Saddam alive, that the economy is turning around, that Bill and Hillary are irrelevant.
First of all, until I get some hard evidence that doesn't come from a television screen, I seriously doubt that the government is making any great changes, let alone Bush himself. Second of all, Bill and Hillary were always irrelevant, why did you ever bring the matter up?
cjhsa wrote:An Email from a Captain in Iraq...
What does that little story have to do with?
cjhsa wrote:
As far as Bush being qualified to run the country, he certainly isn't any less qualified than a sexual predator who actually brought that problem with him into the Whitehouse.
She didn't think that he was a predator at the time...
Just thought I would straighten a few things out.
