[UCANSEE2]

I thought the DNA on the jacket was found to not necessarily be blood - yet they kept calling it blood?

the DNA on the carpet, on the jacket.

12 of 13 markers matched.

Now, what does that mean to you?

The 'expert' stated that a perfect match meant 1 out of a jillion people were who that DNA belonged. BUt THE EXPERT didn't say this was a perfect match. According to another poster it takes 25 markers matching to make an exclusionary match.

SO, the DNA evidence was a TOTAL SHAM !

[small_l_libertarian]

Actually, I think it was the hair in the sink drain trap that matched 12 out of 13 markers. What I find important about this piece of evidence is that the evidence technician testified that over time a DNA marker can degrade, so you might not get a match on a particular marker. OVER TIME, a DNA marker can degrade. How much time? Do you think her DNA degraded (any of it) in a weekend? You have to believe that to believe that the hair proves that she was in the motorhome the weekend she was killed. Otherwise, it's an old hair. Period.

[oremus]

Are you serious??? Then why didn't Feldman bring that up, or did he?

[oremus]

Also, was the "stuff" on the jacket determined to have been blood? I heard it could have been drool even. Just wondering.

[meadsjn]

The wording of the expert witness was deceptive. (i.e. "12 of 13 markers match" and "a perfect match means a 1 to x-quadrillion chance...", but did not make it clear that a 12 of 13 marker match is not the same as a perfect match.

The links I posted concerning the 24 of 25 was one for commercial testing to determine familial relationships (people searching for distant relatives).

Later I found additional sites on DNA forensics, most of which suggested that a match of four or five markers was sufficient to convict someone.

Strange that these commercial outfits have a much tighter criteria for finding a distant cousin, than the government has for frying your gizzards.