Seems to me this whole debate suggests that there were no eyewitnesses. I mean, there’s really only two options for an eyewitness; either they described him as the perp having a big MURDER tattoo, in which case it’s admissible evidence and could not be covered up by the defendant, or the eyewitness didn’t describe the perp as having such a tattoo, in which case the tattoo would actually exonerate him.
1 Like
