LTS Posted September 21, 2015 Report Share Posted September 21, 2015 Guilty until proven innocent I guess. Not even close. You guess wrong. DNA is corroborative to testimony and other evidence. Not finding DNA only means no DNA could be found. Finding DNA would not necessarily make one guilty either. YAY! Real thinking applied! Everyone pay attention here. While I agree with the ideal of it X., you can't honestly tell me that if the news was different, the impartiality would be the same. I can't predict how anyone is going to act, but it's their choice to not remain impartial. Thing is.. they'd still be wrong to do so. They might ultimately turn out to be right, but that doesn't prove their position now. He's accused of a crime. He's not charged with anything. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PASabreFan Posted September 21, 2015 Report Share Posted September 21, 2015 "Not finding DNA" has gotten a bunch of people released from prison. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inkman Posted September 21, 2015 Report Share Posted September 21, 2015 "Not finding DNA" has gotten a bunch of people released from prison. So has swallowing a bunch Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
That Aud Smell Posted September 21, 2015 Author Report Share Posted September 21, 2015 "Not finding DNA" has gotten a bunch of people released from prison. In circumstances that have any bearing on this situation? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrueBlueGED Posted September 21, 2015 Report Share Posted September 21, 2015 "Not finding DNA" has gotten a bunch of people released from prison. Now go ahead and enlighten us as to the circumstances under which DNA exonerated convicts. Hint: they're not exactly comparable cases. In circumstances that have any bearing on this situation? Beat me by that much. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
That Aud Smell Posted September 21, 2015 Author Report Share Posted September 21, 2015 Beat me by that much. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
X. Benedict Posted September 21, 2015 Report Share Posted September 21, 2015 "Not finding DNA" has gotten a bunch of people released from prison. Not too often. Finding someone else's DNA has. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PASabreFan Posted September 21, 2015 Report Share Posted September 21, 2015 Not too often. Finding someone else's DNA has. Isn't finding someone else's DNA the same as not finding another person's DNA? Smell, it probably has nothing to do with this case. But they didn't find Kane's DNA. It's important. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eleven Posted September 21, 2015 Report Share Posted September 21, 2015 (edited) Isn't finding someone else's DNA the same as not finding another person's DNA? Smell, it probably has nothing to do with this case. But they didn't find Kane's DNA. It's important. You are smarter than this. I know for a fact that you are. I think maybe you're trying too hard, but, certainly, two or more persons' DNA could be at a crime scene or on a person. Onto the second point: It is somewhat important that they did not find Kane's DNA. I have read--casually and on the Internet only and I do not want this to come off as any type of expert opinion, 'cause it's not--that in date rape cases, where condom use is more prevalent than in rape cases that are not date rape cases, DNA is often absent. Edited September 21, 2015 by Eleven Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
That Aud Smell Posted September 21, 2015 Author Report Share Posted September 21, 2015 (edited) Onto the second point: It is somewhat important that they did not find Kane's DNA. I have read--casually and on the Internet only and I do not want this to come off as any type of expert opinion, 'cause it's not--that in date rape cases, where condom use is more prevalent than in rape cases that are not date rape cases, DNA is often absent. Either a condom, or the absence of ###### more generally. (Edit: Really? Huh. Okay. I was trying to be clinical about it.) Relatedly, from the BN article: Still, Kane’s DNA was found beneath the woman’s fingernails and on her shoulders, according to two of the sources, one of them a member of law enforcement. The bolded part is mine. Is that suggesting what I think it's suggesting? If so, it would also be consistent with the rumour I posted upthread (that she'd said "yes" to the common form of male-female intercourse, but "no" to another less common form (as between men and women)). Edited September 21, 2015 by That Aud Smell Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eleven Posted September 21, 2015 Report Share Posted September 21, 2015 Either a condom, or the absence of ###### more generally. (Edit: Really? Huh. Okay. I was trying to be clinical about it.) Relatedly, from the BN article: Still, Kane’s DNA was found beneath the woman’s fingernails and on her shoulders, according to two of the sources, one of them a member of law enforcement. The bolded part is mine. Is that suggesting what I think it's suggesting? If so, it would also be consistent with the rumour I posted upthread (that she'd said "yes" to the common form of male-female intercourse, but "no" to another less common form (as between men and women)). It would also be consistent with them dancing at Skybar. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
That Aud Smell Posted September 21, 2015 Author Report Share Posted September 21, 2015 It would also be consistent with them dancing at Skybar. This is why I asked whether the shoulder thing was suggesting what I thought it was. Would his mere hands on her shoulders leave traceable DNA thereon? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hoss Posted September 21, 2015 Report Share Posted September 21, 2015 This is why I asked whether the shoulder thing was suggesting what I thought it was. Would his mere hands on her shoulders leave traceable DNA thereon? I would doubt it. If wearing a condom during sex is enough to prevent any DNA from being left behind I would imagine a hand wouldn't be enough (there's still a ton of skin contact outside of the condom). But saliva on her neck would make sense. And under her fingernails? That's not a good sign. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
That Aud Smell Posted September 21, 2015 Author Report Share Posted September 21, 2015 I would doubt it. < > But saliva on her neck would make sense. And under her fingernails? That's not a good sign. I have no idea. The saliva thing makes sense. I was wondering whether someone out there might have some insight on the forensic side of things. The under-the-fingernails is an item that seems open to interpretation -- violent struggle? throes of passion? And so on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nfreeman Posted September 21, 2015 Report Share Posted September 21, 2015 I would doubt it. If wearing a condom during sex is enough to prevent any DNA from being left behind I would imagine a hand wouldn't be enough (there's still a ton of skin contact outside of the condom). But saliva on her neck would make sense. And under her fingernails? That's not a good sign. I don't think this is the case -- I think hair, which contains DNA, is commonly left behind. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taro T Posted September 21, 2015 Report Share Posted September 21, 2015 I don't think this is the case -- I think hair, which contains DNA, is commonly left behind. Does the hair itself contain DNA, or only the root/follicle? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
That Aud Smell Posted September 21, 2015 Author Report Share Posted September 21, 2015 Let's not get started on hair. A few years ago, the WaPo broke a story about how the FBI had for decades used faulty science -- regarding the forensic significance of hairs recovered from crime scenes -- in connection with the convictions of 100s of people (some of whom were executed). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tom webster Posted September 21, 2015 Report Share Posted September 21, 2015 "Not finding DNA" has gotten a bunch of people released from prison. Actually, I think finding someone else's DNA is what has gotten a bunch of people released. I'd be shocked if you can find one instance where someone was released solely because no DNA was found. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PASabreFan Posted September 22, 2015 Report Share Posted September 22, 2015 Actually, I think finding someone else's DNA is what has gotten a bunch of people released. I'd be shocked if you can find one instance where someone was released solely because no DNA was found. Just for the sake of argument, if some guy was in prison for rape and for whatever reason his defense didn't have the results of a DNA swab, and after conviction it was revealed that the swab did not detect his DNA, don't you think he'd be released? Eleven, call your answering service. Eleven... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LGR4GM Posted September 22, 2015 Report Share Posted September 22, 2015 Just for the sake of argument, if some guy was in prison for rape and for whatever reason his defense didn't have the results of a DNA swab, and after conviction it was revealed that the swab did not detect his DNA, don't you think he'd be released? Eleven, call your answering service. Eleven... No. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
X. Benedict Posted September 22, 2015 Report Share Posted September 22, 2015 Just for the sake of argument, if some guy was in prison for rape and for whatever reason his defense didn't have the results of a DNA swab, and after conviction it was revealed that the swab did not detect his DNA, don't you think he'd be released? Eleven, call your answering service. Eleven... Why would someone in prison, who wasn't convicted on DNA evidence, get a new trial when there is still no new evidence? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrueBlueGED Posted September 22, 2015 Report Share Posted September 22, 2015 (edited) Just for the sake of argument, if some guy was in prison for rape and for whatever reason his defense didn't have the results of a DNA swab, and after conviction it was revealed that the swab did not detect his DNA, don't you think he'd be released? Eleven, call your answering service. Eleven... I don't think they swabbed for DNA evidence before DNA was a thing. So I don't think your hypothetical could even happen. To my knowledge convictions being overturned on DNA evidence are primarily murder cases where the accused's blood type was seen as legitimate physical evidence; those samples are preserved and have been retested for DNA. There could be rape cases like this, but the wouldn't come from contemporary rape kits. Edited September 22, 2015 by TrueBlueGED Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WildCard Posted September 22, 2015 Report Share Posted September 22, 2015 I don't think they swabbed for DNA evidence before DNA was a thing. So I don't think your hypothetical could even happen. To my knowledge convictions being overturned on DNA evidence are primarily murder cases where the accused's blood type was seen as legitimate physical evidence; those samples are preserved and have been retested for DNA. There could be rape cases like this, but the wouldn't come from contemporary rape kits. I took some time to look it up, there are actually a lot of rape cases overturned from DNA evidence, but like others have said, it's mostly because faulty testing was done the first time, either with poor staff, methods, or samples, and when redone, they find a match to another person. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eleven Posted September 22, 2015 Report Share Posted September 22, 2015 Just for the sake of argument, if some guy was in prison for rape and for whatever reason his defense didn't have the results of a DNA swab, and after conviction it was revealed that the swab did not detect his DNA, don't you think he'd be released? Eleven, call your answering service. Eleven... I've no idea. Sorry, man. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrueBlueGED Posted September 22, 2015 Report Share Posted September 22, 2015 I took some time to look it up, there are actually a lot of rape cases overturned from DNA evidence, but like others have said, it's mostly because faulty testing was done the first time, either with poor staff, methods, or samples, and when redone, they find a match to another person. Good man looking it up. That said, I didn't get the impression that's the sort of thing PA was getting at. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.