How about under the fingernails of the victim?
We leave traces of our genetic material everywhere, even on things we’ve never touched. That got Lukis Anderson charged with a brutal crime he didn’t commit.
www.pbs.org
And then there's this:
"Until recently, this type of DNA has been regarded as incontrovertible proof of direct contact. But a growing number of studies show that DNA does not always stay put. For example, a person who merely carried a cloth that had been wiped across someone else's neck could then transfer that person's DNA onto an object he or she never touched, according to a study published earlier this year in the
International Journal of Legal Medicine. Similarly, Cynthia M. Cale, a master's candidate in human biology at the University of Indianapolis, recently reported in the
Journal of Forensic Sciences that a person who uses a steak knife after shaking hands with another person transfers that person's DNA onto the handle. In fact, in a fifth of the samples she collected, the person identified as the main contributor of DNA never touched the knife. Cale and her colleagues are among several groups now working to establish how easily and how quickly cells can be transferred—and how long they persist. “What we get is what we get,” Cale says, “but it's how that profile is used and presented that we need to be cautious about.”
The criminal justice system’s reliance on DNA evidence, often treated as infallible, carries significant risks
www.scientificamerican.com
The purpose of posting these isn't to suggest BK is innocent, but to suggest that the DNA evidence (that we know about), on its own, is not a slam dunk case, and much of the other evidence has holes too.
MOO.
Until the State begins putting on their case, I'm just keeping my fingers crossed that the case is "strong enough".
