3 ms·

The presumption was that the items would have Lee's DNA on them and they did not.

• awb 5y ago
  Would wearing gloves prevent DNA from appearing on a wooden handle?
• rhino369 5y ago
  1) 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 ago
    The standard is beyond a reasonable doubt, not probable. So that's the correct way to describe the evidence.
    • rhino369 5y ago
      Not 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.