Dna

[123321]

What is the name of your state? MO
I guess I cannot get my mind around this.

My daughter was victimized. Claims she bled on bed sheets. Bet sheets with blood found. Sent off with samples for DNA. DNA returned no match. Prosecutor said they are obligated to swab the defendant to compare DNA but I do not understand why it matters – why not send off his shoes to see if his DNA is on his own shoes? Trial approaching and the State has put a criminologist on their team.

Do you think that it may have come back as a match and they do not want to freak us out or something? I cannot understand why his DNA being on his bed sheets matters at all – and I don’t know anything about DNA.

Just doesn’t make sense.

ThanksWhat is the name of your state?

[CdwJava]

It all depends on the nature of the crime and the theory of why the DNA is there.

If he denies being present, and his DNA is on the sheets, that makes a pretty strong argument that he was there.

I'm not really sure what you are asking here. Could you clarify a bit?

- Carl

[efflandt]

Sounds like it took place at his place, but maybe wrong set of sheets were found, which would not prove anything in this case if not a match for your daughter.

Is somebody expecting you to pay for DNA testing unrelated to your daughter's case?

[123321]

I am only asking here because I am aware of this site and after the prosecutor explained it to us a few times - I still did not understand. Asking to clarify is one thing but I did not want to look like a complete idiot and waste their time.

No, no one is asking me to pay for dna testing.

Everyone is getting antsy and I hope you would forgive us for wanting to understand everything even though I think that will be highly unlikely.

Thank you for your answers. This wasn't something I had to know - just something that made me scratch my head and I was tired of thinking about it.

[CavemanLawyer]

I don't really understand what you are asking but in sexual assault cases it is very common for the State to run tests that will surely lead to nothing, simply so the defense can't claim that the State was hiding anything or that they failed to run tests that could have potentially ruled out the Defendant. We live in a society where people think CSI is how its really done. If someone is sexually assaulted and they don't get to see testimony from a serologist, a forensic scientist, and the ID guy who processed the scene, than they feel cheated and wonder whether that full treatment would have uncovered the REAL perpetrator.

Also, if the victim's DNA is not present on the sheets than its a good idea to see if the Defendant's DNA is also not present, because if his DNA is not present on his own sheets than that shows that he must have washed the sheets after they were last used and all DNA was destroyed. In other words, it explains why the victim could be telling the truth even though there's no DNA to back it up.

Even if its the defendant's sheets, and surely his DNA will be found on them, its still necessary to test it to see if there is other DNA besides his own. Let's say DNA is found on the sheets and after comparing it to the DNA of the victim and the Defendant, they are both excluded as possible donors. That means there is another possible suspect. That is evidence that the State is required to turn over to the defense.

[Ohiogal]

Or it is possible that there is another possible victim if the BLOOD doesn't belong to anyone already tested.