Hi Capricorn,Good morning all,
I don't think any of us here are a better authority on DNA than the experts i.e. Henry Lee
Henry Lee has stated on record that this is NOT a DNA case. I agree for so many reasons way more than the scientific aspect
If this is to become a DNA case, then the steps that need to be taken are the release of the FULL report and then take it from there, trying to discern all the DNA that is there (BTW, Lee has seen the FULL report so he surely has a reason for stating that it is NOT a DNA case)
So far, we have Lee saying this is not a DNA case and we have NOBODY else in a scientific capacity or a DNA authority to say that the DNA is the smoking gun for this murder. NOT ONE.
Not one scientist/physician is willing to state that the DNA will lead to the murderer; only statements about how nice it would be to find a match for informative purposes.
The DNA on its own, with no other information in THIS case does not rule anyone in or out.
DNA is a wonderful tool in the PROPER perspective for the RIGHT cases. This isn't one of them
Actually, you do not have to be a DNA expert to realize that the JBR case is NOT a DNA case. All you need to do, is realize what the DNA actually and factually proves.
The DNA, regardless of where it was found, and how much of it was found makes no difference especially, if we cannot positively ID the source. "Most likely", "probably" and "possibly" does not mean "definitively", We do not know whether the DNA allegedly found is blood, saliva, skin tissue, or some other organic cell.
Therefore, without knowing the source, what does the DNA prove? Ot ONLY proves that the DNA, at sometime in history contacted the material it was found on/in.
IF the DNA was found on the garrote, that MIGHT be a different story, but even then, if matched, it would not be enough to attain a conviction.
To bank one's opinion on DNA in the JBR case is quite frivolous, when logically, it proves nothing connected with the case.