[small_l_libertarian]

It didn't make any sense to me, either, and has really been bothering me.

I still don't understand how DNA that supposedly comes from one person would only match 12 out of 13 "pieces" tested. So, I asked about it and was referred to the portion of the testimony where Harmon(?) talked about the DNA evidence.

That's what he said - that DNA degrades over time, and if it starts to degrade, you may not get a match at one or another marker.

What you said makes perfect sense to me - if it has started to degrade in one cell, well, test another cell. That's not what the DNA guy said, though.

Still confused.

[UCANSEE2]

That's what he said - that DNA degrades over time, and if it starts to degrade, you may not get a match at one or another marker.

Another example of letting the human mind make inferences /assumptions by not supplying all the info. "Imagined Testimony":

SO, MR. _____ expert, HOW LONG does it take to degrade.?

Well, it would take longer than the time between Danielle's disappearance and the time we found this stain and tested it.

SO why didn't you test another cell?

"Well, they were all the same, it wasn't possible to prove it was DANIELLE's only, it could be Brenda's, but that would ruin our case, and I wouldn't get paid!"