I am a skeptic myself and there are people far more skeptical than even me. No one should have access to your private information without your consent. That said, there is a lot of faith in the system in your words. I respectfully tend to disagree, because at this stage, I don't trust anyone anywhere. It's the best system we have but can be a slippery slope. There are still many people who feel that OJ's blood/DNA was planted at the scene. I'm just saying, you never know, which is why I am not going to do the ancestry thing myself.But they dont bring in EVERY person or EVERY DNA they find. Old school detective work and common sense plays here.
I dunno, it still baffles me. DNA is the most specific way to narrow down. A match is virtually impossible to be anyone else.
I mean if you didnt do the crime, DNA will 99.99% of the time wont say you did.
That said, in this case, it sounds like it was a family member, who willingly gave up their DNA, so it's all fair game now.
<modsnip>
Last edited by a moderator: