It makes me wonder if in the future there might be false convictions based on DNA evidence, and not from chimeras or inaccurate testing. DNA found at a crime scene has basically come to mean that person is guilty in the public mind (thanks CSI). Even though it's unlikely, it's possible to get some DNA on someone you're near in public who then gets murdered. So you've got DNA on the person, your cell phone is in the area, and you don't have a particular alibi. In most cases that probably means that person is guilty, but I can imagine a number of cases where the person could just be in the wrong place at the wrong time.
From the article it sounds like from where the DNA was located and other corraborating evidence that this guy is guilty. But I'm glad the article ended by saying some of the geneticists weren't condemning the accused based on the DNA evidence alone. I hope that type of thinking expands into the wider public.
From the article it sounds like from where the DNA was located and other corraborating evidence that this guy is guilty. But I'm glad the article ended by saying some of the geneticists weren't condemning the accused based on the DNA evidence alone. I hope that type of thinking expands into the wider public.