10ofRods
Verified Anthropologist
- Joined
- Jun 27, 2019
- Messages
- 15,555
- Reaction score
- 194,856
Some pundits are making a lot of hay about the DNA analysis that yielded that at "least" 99.9998%" of the male population would be excluded from the sample belonging to the suspect's biological father (now they have BK's direct DNA) as being "touch" DNA. I don't see that touch argument being a winner but you never know what a jury will do.
jmo
Touch DNA is still DNA. It has only one source: the living body of the person who produced it. Then, of course, they touched whatever the object in question might be. Presumably, the reason the sample was so valuable is that, well, he touched the sheath, depositing epithelial cells (skin cells) and thereby providing the lab with his full DNA. Which, predictably, matched his dad's DNA at 50%. I sometimes wonder if they ever found his mom's DNA in the trash, as well. That would make for a very convincing object lesson, for the jury.
A truly anti-science juror would be a nightmare in any legal case, that's for sure. They won't want to believe physics or chemistry, either, in that case (and ultimately, DNA is bound by the laws of physics and chemistry, it's actually a fairly simple system).
In this case, I expect that if there is a lone hold-out, it still won't go to a mistrial (they'll compromise in the penalty section). This is JMO.
The part about DNA is scientific fact.