ChaChaCha
Former Member
- Joined
- Apr 11, 2009
- Messages
- 794
- Reaction score
- 0
MR cleaned the coat no doubt about it IMHO. Don't forget he had six weeks to drool/slobber all over himself in that coat. AND all the women he was around in those six weeks? It's highly possibly Tori's hairs had worked their way into the fibres of his coat and the washing or dry cleaning chemicals could have destroyed her DNA, therefore forensics could not show who the hairs belonged to. :moo:
Excerpt from Article:
Dry cleaning wont destroy DNA. However, it may remove it from the clothing. The same is true for a washing machine, it doesnt destroy DNA, but it may rinse it away. The DNA will be squeaky clean, too.
DNA is very, very tough and it lives inside cells. Bleach can destroy DNA, but doesnt always degrade it down to individual nucleotides, which wouldnt be testable. It really takes a lot of the chemical to totally beat forensic DNA dyes. Some scientists use bleach to wipe down their workstations between DNA tests to prevent cross-contamination and sample mixtures.
http://www.leelofland.com/wordpress/things-writers-should-know-about-dna/
My understandinng of the two blond hairs is that there wasn't enough mitochondrial DNA available from either strand to make an identification of the source.
My conclusion is that if drycleaning or washing clothes does not destroy DNA there is no reason to suspect that car shampoo would selectively eradicate the desirable DNA from the car interior while allowing years of accumulated stains, including the semen that everybody is so fond of talking about, saliva and blood to remain.
Just saying ...