What if DNA evidence is all they have?
May 8, 2018 22:43:03 GMT
claudius_2014, crackerjack, and 1 more like this
Post by edward on May 8, 2018 22:43:03 GMT
At his age he has surely gotten rid of anything incriminating. He wouldn't want to die and then have his family find that he committed all these crimes. He also may have assumed that they may link him with DNA and he probably made sure to get rid of everything.
There is a good possibility all they may have is DNA evidence?
With just this evidence do you really think he should be convicted?
The reason I'm asking this is because if this is the case then every criminal should just start planting DNA evidence. Don't like someone, just plan his DNA evidence at a crime.
Even in the FBI labs or the testing sites, someone there could just set someone up.
We will now live in a world where anyone could be easily convicted by a simple placement of DNA evidence, and don't think its so hard.
Say you want to setup someone up you don't like, have someone collect some DNA from the person, even if it is sperm, then plant it at a crime scene.
I am just simply surprised that everyone here takes this DNA evidence like it is 100%, without any other evidence. Just seems wrong to me and if we start convicting people because of DNA evidence alone this will lead to lots of innocent people being setup.
And now with this ancestry DNA matching, it will be even worlds easier to set someone up because you don't even have to make some kind of connection to the person you want to setup. Before ancestry matching or bank matching they could only match 1 sample vs 1 sample, so they would need a reason to suspect someone.
What happens if this was his long lost Twin? Twins have the same DNA fingerprint so it is not out of the realm of possibility.
I'll even go as far to tell everyone this, if I was on his jury and all they had is DNA evidence, I just would not convict someone for DNA evidence alone because I understand this can be manipulated. Maybe he had a buddy he *ed off or he had an affair with their wife and the person had access to all this evidence. You just don't know.
There is a good possibility all they may have is DNA evidence?
With just this evidence do you really think he should be convicted?
The reason I'm asking this is because if this is the case then every criminal should just start planting DNA evidence. Don't like someone, just plan his DNA evidence at a crime.
Even in the FBI labs or the testing sites, someone there could just set someone up.
We will now live in a world where anyone could be easily convicted by a simple placement of DNA evidence, and don't think its so hard.
Say you want to setup someone up you don't like, have someone collect some DNA from the person, even if it is sperm, then plant it at a crime scene.
I am just simply surprised that everyone here takes this DNA evidence like it is 100%, without any other evidence. Just seems wrong to me and if we start convicting people because of DNA evidence alone this will lead to lots of innocent people being setup.
And now with this ancestry DNA matching, it will be even worlds easier to set someone up because you don't even have to make some kind of connection to the person you want to setup. Before ancestry matching or bank matching they could only match 1 sample vs 1 sample, so they would need a reason to suspect someone.
What happens if this was his long lost Twin? Twins have the same DNA fingerprint so it is not out of the realm of possibility.
I'll even go as far to tell everyone this, if I was on his jury and all they had is DNA evidence, I just would not convict someone for DNA evidence alone because I understand this can be manipulated. Maybe he had a buddy he *ed off or he had an affair with their wife and the person had access to all this evidence. You just don't know.