I could buy a Leda kit, capture some stranger's DNA in a bar, send it in and... ta da. He won't even know until someone doxxes him. Could a person do this? Would they do it? ~4% of America is sociopathic enough to be diagnosable if tested.
One could, for that matter, send in swabs from 100 women. One could…
I could buy a Leda kit, capture some stranger's DNA in a bar, send it in and... ta da. He won't even know until someone doxxes him. Could a person do this? Would they do it? ~4% of America is sociopathic enough to be diagnosable if tested.
One could, for that matter, send in swabs from 100 women. One could send in swabs from that neighbor kid who beat up your kid. You start to see the problem?
I assume that as a defense attorney, you understand these problems generally. But most people haven't really thought through the issues with something like Leda. It's going to produce nightmare scenarios for people.
Interesting and legitimate. But how is this different, as far as the admissibility of evidence, than a rape victim pointing out a random guy in the street as her attacker 6 months after the crime and the guy being indicted even though none of the physical evidence implicates him? The jury hears it and decides if they believe her or not. I had a case just like that . It took six years to clear my client based on the DNA evidence.
We have to look at the flip side.
I could buy a Leda kit, capture some stranger's DNA in a bar, send it in and... ta da. He won't even know until someone doxxes him. Could a person do this? Would they do it? ~4% of America is sociopathic enough to be diagnosable if tested.
One could, for that matter, send in swabs from 100 women. One could send in swabs from that neighbor kid who beat up your kid. You start to see the problem?
I assume that as a defense attorney, you understand these problems generally. But most people haven't really thought through the issues with something like Leda. It's going to produce nightmare scenarios for people.
Interesting and legitimate. But how is this different, as far as the admissibility of evidence, than a rape victim pointing out a random guy in the street as her attacker 6 months after the crime and the guy being indicted even though none of the physical evidence implicates him? The jury hears it and decides if they believe her or not. I had a case just like that . It took six years to clear my client based on the DNA evidence.
How is it different? You told me how it's different. This IS "the DNA evidence", that is the gold standard for reliable.
DNA evidence has the stamp of certainty. "DNA doesn't lie."
It's possible to identify people using relatives who have supplied their DNA profiles. That's how some serial killers were finally identified.
A rape test kit is also DNA evidence.
Precisely so. My point.