This message board permanently closed on June 30th, 2020 at 4PM EDT and is no longer accepting new members.
This opens the door for "beyond a shadow of a doubt." If like that one case where the German factory worker's DNA was found at 40 different crime scenes, I think a good attorney could get a criminal off pretty easy by claiming cross contamination in the lab when analyzing DNA samples from victim and suspect.
Isn't Dna evidence a bit suspicious to lean to much on anyway? I mean they only prove that you were there, not that you were there when the murder, or whatever, occurred. i mean, The DNA could get there before or after, the crime happened. It is the same with fingerprints. It only proves you touched it, it doesn't prove that you used it.I agree Dana Jean, I see a massive rise in appeals were the case hinged solely on DNA evidence.