Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

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 -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: i-node who wrote (723276)	6/29/2013 12:05:50 PM
From: combjelly	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1576380

No, I am not. I am just pointing out why forensics would want to use this information. In the past it was too expensive to use routinely. And it was not possible to get trace measurements with any accuracy, even with PCR. But I know the latter has changed in the lab. Obviously it is being used in forensics. 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. I don't follow criminal cases very much, heck I don't even watch crime dramas. So I don't know if it has been done before. Your stance is nonsense. That sort of thing is routinely done to discredit testimony. Zimmerman claimed that Martin punched him in the nose many times and he had to shoot him because Martin was grabbing the gun. But the DNA evidence calls that in question, if not totally shooting it down.