DNA has been
a key dispute in the pretrial phase of
Chris Watts‘ prosecution for
the alleged murders of his wife and two young daughters. But an expert tells PEOPLE that it is unlikely to prove his guilt or innocence on its own.
Dr. Phil Danielson, a professor at the University of Denver’s Department of Biological Sciences who specializes in DNA collection and analysis, says that while it may hold a pop culture-fueled importance in the minds of outside observers, the reality is much hazier in a homicide case like that of
Shan’ann Watts and children
Bella and Celeste, her kids with husband Chris.
[...]
Danielson explains that DNA from Bella and Celeste will not be a decisive factor in confirming what really happened.
“It’s going to be very difficult based on DNA alone to suggest whether or not Mr. Watts strangled his daughters,” he says.
What is certain, he says, is that being submerged in oil only makes DNA retrieval more difficult — but it doesn’t destroy DNA as the two do not mix well.
In fact, in the long term, being buried in the ground is more risky as it exposes DNA to bacteria while oil is “relatively sterile.”
Danielson says the temperature of the oil may be another factor — and it’s unclear how hot the crude was that covered the Watts girls — but oil “in and of itself is not going to guarantee that you’re not going to get any DNA evidence.”
He says that any DNA involved in the case will be trace DNA, also known to the layperson as touch DNA. It can be detected in even minuscule quantities and easily be passed from person to person in ways both direct (via skin to skin contact) or indirect, such as via a surface someone else has touched or between pieces of clothing two people wear when they are washed together, Danielson says.
Hiding Daughters in Oil Won't Destroy DNA in Chris Watts Case — but DNA Won't Be a 'Smoking Gun'
