Scott Besson

Here's Keith Morrison on... And in their defense... You know, each one of these search could be innocuous. Searching Ted Bundy doesn't make you a serial killer and looking up certain things. But when you put it all together, I mean, you know, again, he enjoys the presumption of innocence like anybody, but there's only one picture that emerges.

Leaving your knife sheath with your DNA. That's problematic. That's all I'm saying.

Leaving your knife sheath with your DNA. That's problematic. That's all I'm saying.

Leaving your knife sheath with your DNA. That's problematic. That's all I'm saying.

It's so creepy. It's just so creepy. Again, you can explain it away. Every single fact doesn't mean that he's guilty of anything, but you put it all together. It's not only bad for the defense, but it's so creepy and disturbing.

It's so creepy. It's just so creepy. Again, you can explain it away. Every single fact doesn't mean that he's guilty of anything, but you put it all together. It's not only bad for the defense, but it's so creepy and disturbing.

It's so creepy. It's just so creepy. Again, you can explain it away. Every single fact doesn't mean that he's guilty of anything, but you put it all together. It's not only bad for the defense, but it's so creepy and disturbing.

I'd want to I'd want to put that in. Are you kidding me? I think it goes to the weight and you let the jury decide how much weight, if any, you're going to give it. You don't keep it out.

I'd want to I'd want to put that in. Are you kidding me? I think it goes to the weight and you let the jury decide how much weight, if any, you're going to give it. You don't keep it out.

I'd want to I'd want to put that in. Are you kidding me? I think it goes to the weight and you let the jury decide how much weight, if any, you're going to give it. You don't keep it out.

I can see the defense not wanting it in for sure because it doesn't help them. And I can see a judge saying, why should I exclude it? If I'm doing a 403 balancing, is it more prejudicial than probative? I don't know. I think there's value to it. I think you let the jury decide on this one.

I can see the defense not wanting it in for sure because it doesn't help them. And I can see a judge saying, why should I exclude it? If I'm doing a 403 balancing, is it more prejudicial than probative? I don't know. I think there's value to it. I think you let the jury decide on this one.

I can see the defense not wanting it in for sure because it doesn't help them. And I can see a judge saying, why should I exclude it? If I'm doing a 403 balancing, is it more prejudicial than probative? I don't know. I think there's value to it. I think you let the jury decide on this one.

Absolutely. There's definitely going to be an explanation for every single thing, even the bizarre behavior of circling his vehicle around the crime scene. They're going to bring in, as soon as they possibly can, although the judge has made it a little bit difficult, that he suffers from autism, albeit mild. But maybe that's consistent with that type of behavior.

Absolutely. There's definitely going to be an explanation for every single thing, even the bizarre behavior of circling his vehicle around the crime scene. They're going to bring in, as soon as they possibly can, although the judge has made it a little bit difficult, that he suffers from autism, albeit mild. But maybe that's consistent with that type of behavior.

Absolutely. There's definitely going to be an explanation for every single thing, even the bizarre behavior of circling his vehicle around the crime scene. They're going to bring in, as soon as they possibly can, although the judge has made it a little bit difficult, that he suffers from autism, albeit mild. But maybe that's consistent with that type of behavior.

They're going to explain away all the bizarre behavior. But, you know, just like you can explain away slurred speech, you can explain away bloodshot eyes, you can explain somebody having difficulty driving. When you put all the pieces of the puzzle together, you know, it equals DUI. And in this case, it equals a really abhorrent offense.

They're going to explain away all the bizarre behavior. But, you know, just like you can explain away slurred speech, you can explain away bloodshot eyes, you can explain somebody having difficulty driving. When you put all the pieces of the puzzle together, you know, it equals DUI. And in this case, it equals a really abhorrent offense.

They're going to explain away all the bizarre behavior. But, you know, just like you can explain away slurred speech, you can explain away bloodshot eyes, you can explain somebody having difficulty driving. When you put all the pieces of the puzzle together, you know, it equals DUI. And in this case, it equals a really abhorrent offense.

Of course. And of the defense, obviously, you're not just going to go, all right, you got us. So there's going to be an argument. Likely, it's not going to be to challenge the effectiveness of DNA. They'll say, all right, it's just DNA on there.