Recent content by JLZ

Unless entry to the database is technologically required in order to make the comparison. But if there are different rules for when collection can be ordered and when the database can be used--where are the former?

Thank you. It seems from that and the previous Articles that there are rules about whose DNA can be included in the database. People convicted and suspected of serious crime, essentially. And there need to be plausible reasons for suspicion. Being a resident of the village where the...

It sounded like the journalist was speculating that the strange DNA may have been on one or both of Emile's bicycles--that were at the grandparents' home.

Link on your refusal quote, please? For comparison, in Australia, if investigators want people to submit to a DNA test, they apply to a judge for a warrant, and if there's a warrant the thing happens, by force if necessary. But the judge when deciding whether to give the warrant has to apply...

Good question. Or are they all volunteers? The article Rikissa linked above says that the samples will be compared to unknown DNA found on Emile's personal belongings. If so then a match would not necessarily be incriminating.

The fresh twist is that around 100 locals/villagers will have DNA samples taken; while the grandparents already had theirs taken at the start of the investigation. I suppose this means, that police have DNA evidence that needs matching, and it doesn't match to either grandparent.

To say that you know something may be the case, is more or less to say that you don't know whether it is the case or not. The statement is talking about possibilities. There is no declaration that J & J even believe that there is such a person who either knows what happened or witnessed some...

And co-worker culture.

The wording you quote, it sounds very standard to me. Not personal to this case at all. What I find notable about the Jess and Josh release is that, circumstances being what they are, J&J have thanked police and said nothing in support of her parents. I also think a reason for the release is...

(Greened by me) Hide me under a sheep carcass and then let the eagles scatter my bones--rather than have the family who killed me turn me into a sacred site where they can sentimentalize over what great caregivers they were.

I think Mandi's post was an expression of values and perplexity. It wasn't the argument, "If I was innocent in those circumstances, I'd do this; these people aren't doing this, therefore they aren't innocent."

Perhaps, though, after your knowledge of 47-years-plus--depending on what sort of person your husband has proved himself to be--it would take a lot to convince you that he had indeed harmed your grandchild.

(snipped for focus) 'Not co-operating' is a label that police have applied and whose appropriateness the grandparents have disputed ("devastated" etc). I don't know what the facts are behind the label. For all I know the only basis is that the grandparents have asserted some legal rights while...

Most offences, there is no minimum penalty. Having a minimum is called "mandatory sentencing provisions" and it's controversial. I would say lawyers, judges disapprove of politicians taking over that aspect of their job. But I might be overgeneralising.

Here's one that did. BBC NEWS | UK | Magazine | How can a dog sniff through concrete?