3 ms·
I don’t know anything about the specific case, but often DNA from someone else would be totally irrelevant. If I murder someone with my kitchen knife, my wife
by rhino369 5y ago
I don’t know anything about the specific case, but often DNA from someone else would be totally irrelevant.
If I murder someone with my kitchen knife, my wife and her fathers DNA will be on the murder weapon.
If you buy a gun from someone and then go shoot someone with it, it might have the sellers DNA on it.
So it’s sometimes the case that DNA can’t really create reasonable doubt.
- causality0 5y agoNot just the seller, workers at the manufacturing plant, and any person who walked in the shop and asked to hold it.
- Turing_Machine 5y agoRight. There was an incident in Europe, I believe, where law enforcement thought they'd identified an individual responsible for a massive international crime spree. What they'd actually identified was the factory worker who packaged the DNA collection swabs.
- chrisandchris 5y agoYou believe right but forgot 1 thing: these DNA collection swabs were supposed to be DNA-free (or at least sold as that) but some problem while manufacturing put DNA on them. It‘s known as „Heilbronner Phantom“ (phantom of heilbronn). Source: https://de.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heilbronner_Phantom https://de.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heilbronner_Phantom
- hwillis 5y agoThe presumption was that the items would have Lee's DNA on them and they did not.
- awb 5y agoWould wearing gloves prevent DNA from appearing on a wooden handle?
- rhino369 5y ago1) That really isn't true. Studies indicated anywhere from 40-75% of the time you can't find "touch" DNA on objects that were handled by someone. That's not even considering whether he could have been wearing gloves or wiped the object after. 2) Since the testing was conducted by defense counsel, we don't really know what an objective test would even show. His lawyers statements are a bit weasel worded--"did not show an 'absolute or conclusive' connection to Lee." Okay, but does that mean it showed a probable match? Is the DNA just too degraded to test?
- hwillis 5y agoThe standard is beyond a reasonable doubt, not probable. So that's the correct way to describe the evidence.
- rhino369 5y agoNot really. Reasonable doubt refers to the totality of the evidence. A piece of evidence that probably supports a guilty verdict does not undue other evidence just because it doesn't rise the level of reasonable doubt by itself.