This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
How DNA Is Turning Us Into A Nation Of Suspects
Submitted by John Whitehead via The Rutherford Institute,
“The year is 2025. The population is 325 million, and the FBI has the DNA profiles of all of them. Unlike fingerprints, these profiles reveal vital medical information. The universal database arrived surreptitiously. First, the Department of Defense's repository of DNA samples from all military personnel, established to identify remains of soldiers missing from action, was given to the FBI. Then local police across the country shadowed individuals, collecting shed DNA for the databank. On the way, thousands of innocent people were imprisoned because they had the misfortune to have race-based crime genes in their DNA samples. Sadly, it did not have to be this way. If only we had passed laws against collecting and using shed DNA….”—Professor David H. Kaye
Every dystopian sci-fi film we’ve ever seen is suddenly converging into this present moment in a dangerous trifecta between science, technology and a government that wants to be all-seeing, all-knowing and all-powerful.
By tapping into your phone lines and cell phone communications, the government knows what you say. By uploading all of your emails, opening your mail, and reading your Facebook posts and text messages, the government knows what you write. By monitoring your movements with the use of license plate readers, surveillance cameras and other tracking devices, the government knows where you go.
By churning through all of the detritus of your life—what you read, where you go, what you say—the government can predict what you will do. By mapping the synapses in your brain, scientists—and in turn, the government—will soon know what you remember. And by accessing your DNA, the government will soon know everything else about you that they don’t already know: your family chart, your ancestry, what you look like, your health history, your inclination to follow orders or chart your own course, etc.
Of course, none of these technologies are foolproof. Nor are they immune from tampering, hacking or user bias. Nevertheless, they have become a convenient tool in the hands of government agents to render null and void the Constitution’s requirements of privacy and its prohibitions against unreasonable searches and seizures.
Consequently, no longer are we “innocent until proven guilty” in the face of DNA evidence that places us at the scene of a crime, behavior sensing technology that interprets our body temperature and facial tics as suspicious, and government surveillance devices that cross-check our biometrics, license plates and DNA against a growing database of unsolved crimes and potential criminals.
The government’s questionable acquisition and use of DNA to identify individuals and “solve” crimes has come under particular scrutiny in recent years. Until recently, the government was required to at least observe some basic restrictions on when, where and how it could access someone’s DNA. That has all been turned on its head by various U.S. Supreme Court rulings, including the recent decision to let stand the Maryland Court of Appeals’ ruling in Raynor v. Maryland, which essentially determined that individuals do not have a right to privacy when it comes to their DNA.
Although Glenn Raynor, a suspected rapist, willingly agreed to be questioned by police, he refused to provide them with a DNA sample. No problem. Police simply swabbed the chair in which Raynor had been sitting and took what he refused to voluntarily provide. Raynor’s DNA was a match, and the suspect became a convict. In refusing to hear the case, the U.S. Supreme Court gave its tacit approval for government agents to collect shed DNA, likening it to a person’s fingerprints or the color of their hair, eyes or skin.
Whereas fingerprint technology created a watershed moment for police in their ability to “crack” a case, DNA technology is now being hailed by law enforcement agencies as the magic bullet in crime solving. It’s what police like to refer to a “modern fingerprint.” However, unlike a fingerprint, a DNA print reveals everything about “who we are, where we come from, and who we will be.”
With such a powerful tool at their disposal, it was inevitable that the government’s collection of DNA would become a slippery slope toward government intrusion. Certainly, it was difficult enough trying to protect our privacy in the wake of a 2013 Supreme Court ruling in Maryland v. King that likened DNA collection to photographing and fingerprinting suspects when they are booked, thereby allowing the government to take DNA samples from people merely “arrested” in connection with “serious” crimes. At that time, Justice Antonin Scalia warned that as a result of the Court’s ruling, “your DNA can be taken and entered into a national database if you are ever arrested, rightly or wrongly, and for whatever reason.”
Now, in the wake of this Raynor ruling, Americans are vulnerable to the government accessing, analyzing and storing their DNA without their knowledge or permission. As the dissenting opinion in Raynor for the Maryland Court of Appeals rightly warned, “a person desiring to keep her DNA profile private, must conduct her public affairs in a hermetically sealed hazmat suit.... The Majority’s holding means that a person can no longer vote, participate in a jury, or obtain a driver's license, without opening up his genetic material for state collection and codification.”
All 50 states now maintain their own DNA databases, although the protocols for collection differ from state to state. That DNA is also being collected in the FBI’s massive national DNA database, code-named CODIS (Combined DNA Index System), which was established as a way to identify and track convicted felons and has since become a de facto way to identify and track the American people from birth to death.
Indeed, hospitals have gotten in on the game by taking and storing newborn babies’ DNA, often without their parents’ knowledge or consent. It’s part of the government’s mandatory genetic screening of newborns. However, in many states, the DNA is stored indefinitely. What this means for those being born today is inclusion in a government database that contains intimate information about who they are, their ancestry, and what awaits them in the future, including their inclinations to be followers, leaders or troublemakers.
For the rest of us, it’s just a matter of time before the government gets hold of our DNA, either through mandatory programs carried out in connection with law enforcement and corporate America, or through the collection of our “shed” or “touch” DNA.
While much of the public debate, legislative efforts and legal challenges in recent years have focused on the protocols surrounding when police can legally collect a suspect’s DNA (with or without a search warrant and whether upon arrest or conviction), the question of how to handle “shed” or “touch” DNA has largely slipped through without much debate or opposition.
Yet as scientist Leslie A. Pray notes:
We all shed DNA, leaving traces of our identity practically everywhere we go. Forensic scientists use DNA left behind on cigarette butts, phones, handles, keyboards, cups, and numerous other objects, not to mention the genetic content found in drops of bodily fluid, like blood and semen. In fact, the garbage you leave for curbside pickup is a potential gold mine of this sort of material. All of this shed or so-called abandoned DNA is free for the taking by local police investigators hoping to crack unsolvable cases. Or, if the future scenario depicted at the beginning of this article is any indication, shed DNA is also free for inclusion in a secret universal DNA databank.
What this means is that if you have the misfortune to leave your DNA traces anywhere a crime has been committed, you’ve already got a file somewhere in some state or federal database—albeit it may be a file without a name. As Forensic magazine reports, “As officers have become more aware of touch DNA’s potential, they are using it more and more. Unfortunately, some [police] have not been selective enough when they process crime scenes. Instead, they have processed anything and everything at the scene, submitting 150 or more samples for analysis.” Even old samples taken from crime scenes and “cold” cases are being unearthed and mined for their DNA profiles.
Today, helped along by robotics and automation, DNA processing, analysis and reporting takes far less time and can bring forth all manner of information, right down to a person’s eye color and relatives. Incredibly, one company specializes in creating “mug shots” for police based on DNA samples from unknown “suspects” which are then compared to individuals with similar genetic profiles.
If you haven’t yet connected the dots, let me point the way: Having already used surveillance technology to render the entire American populace potential suspects, DNA technology in the hands of government will complete our transition to a suspect society in which we are all merely waiting to be matched up with a crime.
No longer can we consider ourselves innocent until proven guilty. As I make clear in my book A Government of Wolves: The Emerging American Police State, now we are all suspects in a DNA lineup until circumstances and science say otherwise.
Of course, there will be those who point to DNA’s positive uses in criminal justice, such as in those instances where it is used to absolve someone on death row of a crime he didn’t commit, and there is no denying its beneficial purposes at times. However, as is the case with body camera footage and every other so-called technology that is hailed as a “check” on government abuses, in order for the average person—especially one convicted of a crime—to request and get access to DNA testing, they first have to embark on a costly, uphill legal battle through red tape and, even then, they are opposed at every turn by a government bureaucracy run by prosecutors, legislatures and law enforcement.
What this amounts to is a scenario in which we have little to no defense of against charges of wrongdoing, especially when “convicted” by technology, and even less protection against the government sweeping up our DNA in much the same way it sweeps up our phone calls, emails and text messages.
Yet if there are no limits to government officials being able to access your DNA and all that it says about you, then where do you draw the line? As technology makes it ever easier for the government to tap into our thoughts, our memories, our dreams, suddenly the landscape becomes that much more dystopian.
With the entire governmental system shifting into a pre-crime mode aimed at detecting and pursuing those who “might” commit a crime before they have an inkling, let alone an opportunity, to do so, it’s not so far-fetched to imagine a scenario in which government agents (FBI, local police, etc.) target potential criminals based on their genetic disposition to be a “troublemaker” or their relationship to past dissenters. Equally disconcerting: if scientists can, using DNA, track salmon across hundreds of square miles of streams and rivers, how easy will it be for government agents to not only know everywhere we’ve been and how long we were at each place but collect our easily shed DNA and add it to the government’s already burgeoning database?
As always there will be those voices—well-meaning, certainly—insisting that if you want to save the next girl from being raped, abducted or killed, then we need to give the government all the tools necessary to catch these criminals before they can commit their heinous crimes.
It’s hard to argue against such a stance. If you care for someone, you’re particularly vulnerable to this line of reasoning. Of course we don’t want our wives butchered, our girlfriends raped, our daughters abducted and subjected to all manner of atrocities. But what about those cases in which the technology proved to be wrong, either through human error or tampering? It happens more often than we are told.
For example, David Butler spent eight months in prison for a murder he didn’t commit after his DNA was allegedly found on the murder victim and surveillance camera footage placed him in the general area the murder took place. Conveniently, Butler’s DNA was on file after he had voluntarily submitted it during an investigation years earlier into a robbery at his mother’s home. The case seemed cut and dried to everyone but Butler who proclaimed his innocence. Except that the DNA evidence and surveillance footage was wrong: Butler was innocent.
That Butler’s DNA was supposedly found on the victim’s nails was attributed to three things: one, Butler was a taxi driver “and so it was possible for his DNA to be transferred from his taxi via money or another person, onto the murder victim”; two, Butler had a rare skin condition causing him to shed flakes of skin—i.e., more DNA to spread around, much more so than the average person; and three, police wanted him to be the killer, despite the fact that “the DNA sample was only a partial match, of poor quality, and experts at the time said they could neither say that he was guilty nor rule him out.”
Moreover, despite the insistence by government agents that DNA is infallible, New York Times reporter Andrew Pollack makes a clear and convincing case that DNA evidence can, in fact, be fabricated. Israeli scientists “fabricated blood and saliva samples containing DNA from a person other than the donor of the blood and saliva,” stated Pollack. “They also showed that if they had access to a DNA profile in a database, they could construct a sample of DNA to match that profile without obtaining any tissue from that person.” The danger, warns scientist Dan Frumkin, is that crime scenes can be engineered with fabricated DNA.
Now if you happen to be the kind of person who trusts the government implicitly and refuses to believe it would ever do anything illegal or immoral, then the prospect of government officials—police, especially—using fake DNA samples to influence the outcome of a case might seem outlandish. But for those who know their history, the probability of our government acting in a way that is not only illegal but immoral becomes less a question of “if” and more a question of “when.”
- 9040 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -


Us and them. And that's all you need to know. You figure it out.
The keys to the kingdom. There is no junk DNA. Read into what activates DNA.
In the push to get everyone to get measles vaccine, a way to boost Big Pharma's profits from an ineffective vaccine, there were stories that included the statement that vaccination would protect the "herd." To the New World Order, apparently you are not sheeple, you are cows in the herd. With DNA profiles on everyone, doctors looking for potential transplant donors will have almost unlimited access to sources of kidneys, livers, hearts and the organ list goes on. What if you don't want to be a donor? You are just a "cow" in the herd, waiting for your organs to be harvested. You have no rights when someone like Dick Cheney needs a new heart.
Excuse me officer but that test is going to give a false reading... my girlfriend you know... best not to embarass her....
If you're not doing anything wrong, what do you have to hide, right? Right? Who's with me here? Anyone? We can trust that our betters won't convict you on flimsy circumstantial evidence just to 'get their man', right? Right?
If they don't already know I'm hiding something they have no right to look.
Well, we Americans are, afterall, petty criminals.
Should we arrange a spank fest?
One percent are innocent, the rest want government.
Old news. Everyone in the USSA has been guilty of a "crime" daily since the 80s. Just one more nail in the coffin. "Show me the man, I'll show you the crime." -Laventry Beria, head of secret police in USSR 1946-1953
THAT is worthy of an up-vote,
Oh look, foreign advisors to ISIS/ISIL were arrested... http://english.farsnews.com/newstext.aspx?nn=13931216000838
Including two Americans, and an Israeli...
Shocked... Shocked, I say!
Beria, another fuck from the Caucasus, like Stalin from Georgia.
More like 1933, when the trading with the enemy act was amended.
Pretty sure that has been going on way past the 1930s
It all comes down to what the prosecution can sell to a jury. I sat on the jury for a murder trial a few years ago, and they spent an afternoon on the DNA evidence. That portion of the evidence came down to how much we believed the testimony of the DNA tester. Even if we could compare two sets of symbols, I guarantee none of us knew exactly what we were looking at or whether it passed the sniff test. Fortunately in that trial, there was also a ton of hard incontrovertible evidence. As in fifteen-minutes for a unanimous guilty verdict.
The human being has an almost infinite ability to scam the system and this post only touches one side. When EBay sells aerosol cans of synthesized markers to spray about 'they' won't be able to trace individuals. Your DNA isn't sequenced when the collect DNA only discrete markers, it used to be less than 100 but now it's hundreds of thousands, but still a finite number. Some day assassins will show up at the scene with markers that prove that JFK killed their victim. Of course 'they' can download my markers from 23andMe and plant them at the scene of some kiddie murder and DeadFred will no longer be here with his witty one liners, but once this is believed to be common how many jurors will believe the evidence? There's a reason why OJ got aquitted for a murder he most likely committed, that's because Marsha Clark couldn't find a single person in that inner city jury pool who believed that the police WOULDN'T plant evidence. Not a single one. They want total control but instead they are totally losing control. Take steps to survive the transition period.
That's a shitload of bolding and italicizing.
Clearly he has a lot of Bold and Italian points
Just read John Grishams "Innocent Man." All the way back in 1988 it shows several people who were basically just raped by police and prosecutors in order to get death row convictions. Fucking crazy.
You can bet your ass that at the end of each future Presidency, instead of a 'Presidential Pardon' list, there will be a 'Hit[lery] List', of "folks" needing to be arrested for something.
"Enemies of the people," clearly
Once they get a DNA sample from you, they can plant it on any crime scene they want, and you are fucked. Think about it. How hard would it be, once they owned a DNA sample? And yes they can take a small sample and multiply it to a larger sample for use for anythign they like.
Is that you OJ Simpson?
No, It's Mark Fuhrman!
That charade kept Americans from following the '93 WTC bombing trial in NYC.
Hmmm.....
Yeah they dont need a DNA sample to do that.
A cop on the beat behind on his quota simply pistol whips you with the evidence and you are convicted.
Amplified, extracted DNA is not anything like skin cells or other nucleated cells in the body. I'm not sure if you could successfully plant this product in a crime scene and falsely convict someone. I could tell this was not original specimen but a processed product of amplicons.
It may be able to be done considering I'm clinical not forensic but I would sure like to know how it could be accomplished.
Miffed
No doubt, but then you have to ask the next question. Will the forensic technician in the crime lab care whether they detect a processed sample? We have seen many bad things happen. Crime labs that are a mess with contamination, and even technicians who fabricated hundreds (thousands?) of false positive tests, at least for drugs. I think they are a bit too cozy with the prosecutors and LEOs, and a bit too eager to please them. MOAR FUNDING!
Miffed, it seems like you were passed over for that Fellowship at the Weizmann Institute, otherwise you'd be aware this is possible. Or at least, let's look into the Israeli characters this article discusses. Nucleix is the company that is mentioned - their leader is a guy named Elon Ganor. You can find public info about him like this:
"In 1997 Ganor with the help of Michael Spencer (At the time Principal at Booz Allen Hamilton who led the Internet Strategy Group of the Communications, Media and Technology practice) wrote the business plan for a new type of a VoIP exchange phone company.[11]"
So after this Israeli worked with the NSA contractor BAH to get in early on VOIP tech, he decided to go into DNA identification (and replication) technology. Notice how if you search Nucleix, it presents itself as a company that will combat cancer! In reality, it's DNA identification tech. Adam Wasserstrom, their founder actually graduated from Weizmann, studying there from 2002-2008 and then boom, he founded a company that has no funding sources made publicly available which is doing DNA identification/fabrication and gets itself in a NYT article written by Andrew Pollack. I'll leave it to ya'll to sift through coincidences.
They whoever they are don't need to plant it. All they have to do is bring in the white coats who will say they found it.
in 2025 your license plate is a bar code of your dna.
iPhone7 equiped with NSA DNA scanner
a bit optimistic perhaps
Using DNA as crime prevention is preposterous. There is such a push to have childrens' DNA type on file today but the only reason for this I can see would be in remains identification, not in some vain hope to prevent an abduction.
There is no genetic component in criminal behavior elucidated in DNA sequencing. Other motivations have to be at hand.
Miffed
As others suggest, HarvestBook. Oh, sick (not the synonym for 'cool' kind) - that probably already exists in prototype.
Imagine DNA without meazles vaccine markers!
You may be right but who will argue and win? Deniers? The danger we face is not the technology but the fact that we will not be able to contest it. This is the problem I see with NSA data collection. If the say you wrote or said something, who will be able to refute it? They will be the only source, uncontestable. If they have science that says you are predisposed to ANYTHING, will you be able to contest it? Can you argue against climate change in a court of law?
true - open source software allows anyone to make a movie of an ex pres robbing a bank if they like... and who you gonna believe?
i even saw clinton taking bong hits on SNL one time :-)
I agree there will be no refutation based on truth. Obama's birth certificate was shown to be a forgery. A poor one at that. Has this made any difference? So, if I were to give sworn testimony the DNA presented is in fact a plant, will this make a difference as well? This is the state we are approaching where fact or fiction can convict.
DNA is similar to a fingerprint. There is no time stamp proving when it was placed at a location and DNA is very stable. Given faily good conditions, it can remain amplifiable for decades and, as with most things, It can be helpful as well as horribly abused.
Miffed
I believe the most basic, and effective right we still have is Jury Duty. It does allow common people to let somebody walk.
No victim, no crime.
.."If the say you wrote or said something, who will be able to refute it?"..
Take another step where they outright manufacture evidence and how ya gonna fight that?- the rule of law is dead and gone.
Insurance company cost reduction program. Both life and health insurance denied or cost structured too high for those lucky enough to have certain genetic markers.
Warren Buffett has laid the groundwork for how Insurance firms should merge with government to maximize crony-profits.
Thing is we don't have a government. The US is run by contractors for corporations, pedophiles out of London, and the like. I'm pretty its all going to break down into chaos so there is not much sense of worrying about it. Just BTFD.
Call me crazy, but... if I were a criminal I'd capture 1000s of dna samples and... sprinkle that shit like potpurri at the crime scene. Voila.
Always somebody trying to be the one eyed king. Always be one eyed jacks
I think human trends indicate that we will ultimately trade every conceivable liberty for security and convenience, just as we have traded every job for cheap foreign goods and labor. We are too good to work or fight for anything except what we might think is free. We will pay for a personal trainer or gym membership but take insult that we mow our own yard or wash our own car. The horror!
We will accept any indignation for the sake of "affordable" health care or just some free cheese. This is the trend I see. The inability to resist something for nothing that ALWAYS costs more than we could ever have imagined, the bill always coming too late to do anything about it.
So you want my DNA to qualify for benefits and service? No problem. You want to track my every movement and communication for the ability to post my dinner plans on Facebook for all of my imaginary friends to see? Cool! Why not?
Every "freedom" we have is conditional and has strings and costs attached, and those costs are increasing as our freedoms evaporate.
My solution is similar to what I suggested for cell phone tracking, trade them with random people, from all over the country.
Their tracking tech-nuts, and their software would probably both have meltdowns.
For DNA, we can all just start mailing chain letters coast to coast, rub the envelope on your skin and send it on.
I have another plan also, but it might seem a bit subversive...
How about they match you up with some kid you unknowingly fathered on a one-nighter 30 years ago?
Well, thirty years ago should remove all parental responsibilities at least. ;-)
Miffed
Lawsuit for unpaid child support?
Oh dear, you have me stumped.
How about claiming you are a tetragametic chimera? If that doesn't work, run like hell to Antarctica. I hope you like emperor penguins.
Miffed;-)
There's only one very very very slim chance so I'm not too worried. But maybe many should be?
If you are sent to prison, they take your DNA irregardless of your reason for stay or conviction. Never been in prison, but I've been incarcerated in county. I'll kill myself before I go back. I did not steal or hurt anyone!
SH
Yep, I got all my shit done, Toungue swab, finger printing, etc. For a DUI. Just IN CASE I RAPE/ MURDER SOMEONE. Fuck this place. Let it burn already.
30 days in. I lost 18 lbs. Saw the outside for 15 min total. I could not shit 'cause of the food! They put me on a stool softner, but it barely helped! I was charged $5 per medical request, Of course the shitters were open, so I started to place my towel over my head when I tried to shit on the open seat!
How long before you're charged and convicted of 'pre-crime' based on your thoughts?
Facebook is implementing automatic face tagging. The peropticon you enter outside your own four walls of your abode is rife with cameras. Predictive behaviour software is currently being DEPLOYED to identify people acting SUSPICIOUSLY in public places. We live in the future and it sucks Hillary Clinton Ballz.
How long before you're charged and convicted of 'pre-crime' based on your thoughts?
"How long before you're charged and convicted of 'pre-crime' based on your CLICKS?"
Fixed it for you.
They'll start recording DNA at birth, soon. After that, it'll only take a few generations before they have everyone.
"Criminals" = minorities who are disliked by the majority. The majority (in power, not necessarily number) defines themselves as "good". It's all very arbitrary.
Under free market capitalism (if it were possible), the most successful corporations would continue to grow in power and efficiency until they eventually owned everything and everyone. The cause of such a lopsided outcome is the restriction placed on coercion.
"Crime" is created by rules placed on life with the intent of favoring one person or group of people (those making the laws) over others. It would be stupid for others to comply with such rules that are against their wellbeing and interests simply because someone else defined them as the rules, which is why there are "criminals".
"Crime", breaking of the rules, is the only way that the little guys have to fight back against the bigger guys who are in control over the system. Without such an ability, the little guys would be completely helpless.
In the future, perhaps "criminals" will be captured from a young age based on DNA and/or behavioral profiling. In such a world, those in power would finally be near to having perfect slaves. There would be no hope left for rebellion.
TL;DR: Laws exist to restrict freedom, for the sake of defending and solidifying power, and crime exists to break laws and to express freedom. Those who support limiting crime are those who support restricting freedom (because it would happen to increase their own power or safety more than it would hurt them). Most of us (definitely most ZH members) are interested in restricting freedom. (Anyone who idealizes any social, political, moral, or economic system, or who believes any laws should exist, etc, falls into this group.) Most of us simply disagree on what restrictions should be in place, because the ones that are currently in place are not in our favor as much as the ones we dream for. We should be careful not to become too powerful and to know the value of having enemies, lest we destroy our enemies and ourselves in the process.
"They'll start recording DNA at birth, soon."
They are doing it now. From the article:
Indeed, hospitals have gotten in on the game by taking and storing newborn babies’ DNA, often without their parents’ knowledge or consent. It’s part of the government’s mandatory genetic screening of newborns. However, in many states, the DNA is stored indefinitely. What this means for those being born today is inclusion in a government database that contains intimate information about who they are, their ancestry, and what awaits them in the future, including their inclinations to be followers, leaders or troublemakers.
***********
The CNN link in the paragraph above goes to a 2010 article that is also worth reading.
We have all been here before.
The zero 1% is sick and tired of having their rights questioned by USele$$ protoplast USing up their resources. Get with the program already because it has been around for centuries anyway!
http://www.uvm.edu/~lkaelber/eugenics/
http://thenewsdoctors.com/a-century-ago-rockefellers-funded-eugenics-ini...
Plus insurance companies can mine genetic DBs to provide insurance only to those who have no genetic markers of certain future ilnesses.
Gattaca (the part at the end when Borgnine allows Hawke to board the spaceship even though he knows Hawke is a de*gene*rate.
Reminds me of getting stopped at the border. They analyze my drivers license and find traces of drugs on it. I'm like yeah, it was in my wallet touching money. Everyone knows there's drug residue on the vast majority of money in circulation. One hour later after a search that found nothing I was on my way.
Like drugs, our DNA is everywhere.
The police' job is not to find the killer, or thief.
Their job is to find someone that an plausibly be held responsible. This is so simply because it is in the nature of humans to desire to finish their work quickly.
That seemingly fine distinction is, in fact, a divide the size of the Grand Canyon.
Anyone who believes 'they are innocent until proven guilty' hasn't been convicted sans trial by the neighbours and local gossip. And then there's the whole lunacy of the trial - who arranges the fuss and fluff of a trial for an innocent man? You wouldn't. You'd arrange the trial for a guilty man who just hasn't been convicted of their crime(s) yet.
Am I, a juror, really expected to believe you didn't do it when the cops have already investigated and determined you did do it?