4 ms·
I think you're confusing an investigation with a trial. This technique seems like a breakthrough for narrowing a list of suspects. But your claim that this woul
by all_blue_chucks 9y ago
I think you're confusing an investigation with a trial. This technique seems like a breakthrough for narrowing a list of suspects. But your claim that this would be used as evidence in a trial is unfounded and a bit silly. They have him. They have the DNA of the killer. They can perform their own testing without relying on any online DNA test results at all.
- kevin_thibedeau 9y agoIn this case. But what about the next guy who is a false "match" for a rapist and has life turned upside down because of it.
- SubiculumCode 9y agoThey took samples (probably from a trash can). If it wasn't a match,I'd hope they wouldn't have 'turned his life upside down's anyway.
- ImSkeptical 9y agoIn any case where they have the rapist's DNA, and the rapist, I assume they'll do their own test to confirm. It would certainly be jarring to hear you were being accused of rape, but if they checked your DNA and decided it actually wasn't a match, is this a big deal? Granted, they shouldn't go to the media until they've done their own test.