Tommy Arthur DNA, no match

Times Daily is scooped again!

Semen did not match, the Prosecution lost the hair and the DNA on the wig was inconclusive.

No wonder the Prosecution fought so hard to kill the man without having the DNA test.

It seems like the only thing it proves is that she had intercourse with her husband. What's the relevance?

zip, she claimed she was raped by Arthur right before he killed her husband that morning. This doesn't prove he's innocent of the murder of course, but it suggests Judy Wicker lied. The defense is probably hoping everyone will now wonder what else she lied about. To me, all its shows is that yes, she had sex with her husband. It doesn't prove she didn't have sex with Arthur. Maybe she just didn't put that same underwear on afterward. Ugh, this is all gross.

It makes a good case that judy wicker killed her husband and blamed it on Tommy Arthur, who she had been playing as a chump

Tommy Arthur is about to become a rich man if this is overturned

Several things could be considered 1. He wore a condom 2. He did not ejaculate 3. He has already killed one woman, after he went looking for his ex-wife and could not find her he shot and killed her sister. The man was already a murderer and should not have been on the streets to begin with to be charged with another murder. Keep these people locked up and they can't get out and do it again.

Whatever Tommy Arthur did or didn't do before this case has nothing whatsoever to do with this case. They had no hard evidence before, and now, because of this, they have MINUS no hard evidence. This doesn't look good for the prosecution. Guilty or not, I don't see how they can carry out that death penalty now.

quote:

Originally posted by The Cold Hard Truth:
Tommy Arthur is about to become a rich man if this is overturned

The very BEST he can expect from this is to have his life saved, but he will never get out of jail, too much evidence against him.

So it was her husbands, she probably did that to put him to sleep anyway or out of 'obligation',

It ONLY proves she had sex that morning. It does not prove that she "DIDN'T" have sex with Authur or doesn't disprove anything that the THREE Capital Murder Trials has proven and convicted on.

Nice try though.

If DNA testing was done to prove Arthur did not murder Wicker, then what does semen being in the underwear of Judy Wicker that belonged to her husband, have to do with Arthur killing or not killing her husband?
Even if this proves Arthur did not rape her, he could still have killed Troy Wicker, right?

quote:

Originally posted by semiannualchick:
If DNA testing was done to prove Arthur did not murder Wicker, then what does semen being in the underwear of Judy Wicker that belonged to her husband, have to do with Arthur killing or not killing her husband?
Even if this proves Arthur did not rape her, he could still have killed Troy Wicker, right?

Yes and ultimately that is what the courts will find I think. They will most likely convert Arthers sentence to Life without parole instead of killing the man...either way, this test doesn't prove his innocence...

His guilt has only been proven based on hearsay, if the courts find that any part of Judy's testimony is false her whole story has to be considered a lie..
He is going to be a free man based on a technicality

Not really free: Link

quote:

Originally posted by Charlie Tops:
Not really free: Link

Yeah.. I didn't know all that.. He should have been happy to get to go out with a smile on his face

That is what some of have been trying to say here. (THANKS TO SHOALSLANDER) to get you to understand that we actually LIVED through the trials and things.

Still though, just because Arthurs seman wasn't in Judy's panties, still does NOT mean he didn't have sex with her. Not at all.

Now WHERE is this young man who tried to get police to think HE was guilty instead of Arthur (25 years later)???? I would say holing up in the woodwork somewhere, regretting what he said.

Sad thing was this happened during an era where we, as a society, didn't convict women like we do now. She was just as guilty as if she had pulled the trigger, but days of getting her are over, she was convicted of a MUCH lesser crime and served it. But thankfully, she will NEVER be able to forget her role in this senseless murder of Troy.

quote:

Originally posted by The Cold Hard Truth:
His guilt has only been proven based on hearsay, if the courts find that any part of Judy's testimony is false her whole story has to be considered a lie..
He is going to be a free man based on a technicality

Not quite "hearsay", as hearsay is generally inadmissible. Circumstantial evidence is what convicted him, which is not unusual in a murder case.

quote:

Originally posted by zippadeedoodah:

quote:

Originally posted by The Cold Hard Truth:
His guilt has only been proven based on hearsay, if the courts find that any part of Judy's testimony is false her whole story has to be considered a lie..
He is going to be a free man based on a technicality

Not quite "hearsay", as hearsay is generally inadmissible. Circumstantial evidence is what convicted him, which is not unusual in a murder case.

That is very true, Zip.

quote:

Originally posted by Kindred:
That is what some of have been trying to say here. (THANKS TO SHOALSLANDER) to get you to understand that we actually LIVED through the trials and things.

Still though, just because Arthurs seman wasn't in Judy's panties, still does NOT mean he didn't have sex with her. Not at all.

Now WHERE is this young man who tried to get police to think HE was guilty instead of Arthur (25 years later)???? I would say holing up in the woodwork somewhere, regretting what he said.

Sad thing was this happened during an era where we, as a society, didn't convict women like we do now. She was just as guilty as if she had pulled the trigger, but days of getting her are over, she was convicted of a MUCH lesser crime and served it. But thankfully, she will NEVER be able to forget her role in this senseless murder of Troy.

All this proves is that they had condoms way back then...

Test doesn't prove his innocence? I guess that's when you bring in the experts from both sides, the prosecutor and defense, and narrowing everything down to timing. You know, approximate time she had sex, how much time lapsed before the murder, etc.. You know what I mean. All that digging those experts get into. At least it's a step. It saved his neck maybe.