SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: combjelly who wrote (723285)6/29/2013 12:22:35 PM
From: i-node1 Recommendation

Recommended By
Bilow

  Read Replies (1) of 1576295
 
>> As to its use in a trial, the presence of DNA is often used. There is no reason why its absence cannot be used to establish that certain events didn't happen.

The presence of someone else's DNA (and absence of that of the accused or convicted) has been used as the basis for overturning convictions. But I believe it is correct to say that the mere absence of someone's DNA where it might have been expected has never been used to secure a conviction. Nor should it.

The bottom line is that the absence of DNA isn't exculpatory because you never know with any degree of certainty that DNA should have been at the location that was tested.
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News