You think the DA for Dallas County and the DPD had DNA evidence that would exonerate LHO, but refuse to release it. Was DNA analysis even available in 1963?
On Mar 24, 6:54 pm, Ray <j.raymondcarr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I have posted information about the case of Michael Morton
> on the Education Forum
> and got back the equivalent
> of DUMB LOOKS.
You did a poor job of showing any relevance to the Kennedy
assassination. There are thousands of cases that would be relevant,
like Hinckley, the self deluded loner living in a fantasy world that
shot Reagan.
> You think the DA for Dallas County and the DPD had DNA evidence that would
> exonerate LHO, but refuse to release it. Was DNA analysis even available
> in 1963?
No it wasn't, at least according to Wikipedia
"The DNA profiling technique was first reported in 1984[3] by Sir Alec Jeffreys at the University of Leicester in England,[4] and is now the basis of several national DNA databases. Dr. Jeffreys's genetic fingerprinting was made commercially available in 1987, when a chemical company, Imperial Chemical Industries (ICI), started a blood-testing centre in England.[5]"
> > You think the DA for Dallas County and the DPD had DNA evidence that would
> > exonerate LHO, but refuse to release it. Was DNA analysis even available
> > in 1963?
> No it wasn't, at least according to Wikipedia
> "The DNA profiling technique was first reported in 1984[3] by Sir Alec
> Jeffreys at the University of Leicester in England,[4] and is now the
> basis of several national DNA databases. Dr. Jeffreys's genetic
> fingerprinting was made commercially available in 1987, when a chemical
> company, Imperial Chemical Industries (ICI), started a blood-testing
> centre in England.[5]"
Ray`s claim wasn`t based on science or anything you can find in a book. It was based on "things are as Ray says because Rays says they are, and anyone who has an opinion that differs with Ray is a chowderhead". To my mind you don`t amass evidence against such pronouncements, you ridicule them.
