It’s all about the chicken.
The first full day of testimony in the Brown’s Chicken massacre focused on forensic evidence found at the scene.
Or, more precisely, evidence that was not found at the scene, according to the Chicago Tribune.
Lawyers for James Degorski, the second man tried for the 1993 killings, continued to push their line that Degorski wasn’t at the restaurant because no evidence links him to the crime.
Prosecutors are playing up the chicken line of attack for a second time.
Juan Luna was convicted for the slayings in 2007, nearly 15 years later, because DNA extracted from a half-eaten chicken dinner matched his genetic material. Cook County prosecutors described Degorski as Luna’s “best friend and sidekick.”
Another DNA profile was found on the half eaten chicken dinner, but it was never tested.
Defense says the second profile is evidence that a different accomplice was present and prosecutors claim that it’s Degorski’s. Time will tell.
But the lack of physical evidence related to Degorski has become a bone of contention. Both prosecutors and defense attorneys claim shoddy police work.
There were a number of prints recovered from the Palatine Brown’s Chicken that were never tested, and a second, unknown DNA profile was found on the chicken dinner that linked Luna to the crime.
