Watching you said:
It seems obvious to me, but I'll point it out again - 10 markers will not convict anyone of a crime. It's just not good enough, any decent defense attorney would laugh that right out of court. So, you say that 10 markers match 10 markers in the defendent's DNA, sir? Don't you need all the markers to make a positive match? What if the missing markers are different? It's like fingerprint analysis - you have to have the entire fingerprint or it's no good.
This is true.
Would you like to see hypocrisy in action?
Ramsey defenders routinely point to the Innocence Project to show that just one DNA marker can matter in a criminal case. They want so much for those ten markers which are present to match a suspect, any suspect, that they will throw a person in jail for life or even impose the death penalty if ten of a suspect's markers matched those found in JonBenet's underwear, but no other evidence of involvement in the crime, such as fiber evidence or proof of purchase of the cord or tape, existed. What they fail to notice is that this case has
three missing markers. Any one of those markers, or all of them, could exonerate an accused intruder if by some outside chance the missing markers were found and did not match the intruder. Is this what the Ramsey defense wants to do? Risk convicting an innocent man just because some of the evidence matches, but nobody can say
beyond a reasonable doubt that all of it does?
Look, Ramsey defenders. There is a reason why 13 markers are considered important to establish unique identity. It is because 13 are truly considered the amount needed to push a jury beyond reasonable doubt in their deliberations about whether people who say they had nothing to do with the crime scene can be proven to be lying, through evidence of their unique identity via DNA. If you are only going to give a jury ten markers to work with, you are guaranteeing that any conviction you might against all odds temporarily achieve is going to be overturned on appeal, because Barry Scheck will bring the hammer down on your weak DNA identifications with the force of God.
If Ramsey defenders want to be less hypocritical, then they can at least be honest in telling the world that they do not care whether the absolute right person is convicted, just so long as it is someone who is not a Ramsey.