What’s the admissibility of this evidence? And how credible is it? (Probably the Defense’s case in a nutshell)
-
-
-
After they had a suspect, they did a stakeout and grabbed an item he has discarded (likely a disposable cup or something similar) and tested it. They did this TWICE before arresting him. The case is airtight.
-
I know. I’m just guessing the defense will move to have any dna evidence submitted to a genealogy website struck as inadmissible.
-
Doesn't matter. They have his DNA from the crime scene. And his discard DNA. It's a perfect match
-
Nice. I’m not a lawyer. Just thought that might be a defense’s approach to a jury regarding the evidence. Thanks for the info.
-
No jury anywhere is going to buy that when they see the evidence. Not to mention there was no violation of law. Public database. Why should cops not be allowed to use it the same way you and I can?
-
No clue. I just was trying to think how a defense would try to discredit the evidence.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Hell yes. It's in the fine print, folks. if you're not comfortable with potentially helping rape and murder victims find justice then don't submit your DNA. It's really that simple.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
If it saves a life, yes!
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Yes .Dont want ur info used to help solve crimes ? Don’t give it up to begin with
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
When you do any of the DNA programs you sign a release that says they can use your DNA for w/e... whenever etc.. They basically get the rights to use your DNA for anything they want...
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
I see nothing wrong with this, as long as it's done in a legal fashion.
-
It is not wrong because it is legal—it is legal because it is not wrong... Well, it is the the ‘legal fashion’ part which is questioned here, so you are not really contributing.
-
He is saying as long as the law is followed which means the DNA should not be accessed unless a judge sees evidence worthy enough to grant a search warrant allowing them to seize the DNA as evidence.
- End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
If you've ever submitted DNA to a site and not worried about the other implications of its use and abuse (like insurance denial for risk factors if republicans get their way and appease the insurance industry as they so love to do) then, to put it kindly, live and learn.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
The answer is in the DNA.” End the back log of untested rape kits. 13,615 untested rape kits in CA. http://endthebacklog.org/california
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
I wias thinking about getting one, but am a lot more reluctant to now. I don't want my DNA to be responsible for "solving" crimes I'm not even aware of. That is creepy, weird and, well, wrong, especially if you don't know it'll be used for that purpose when you give it.
-
I cannot believe people are so narrow in their thinking. DNA can at some point be used to deny employment, deny or increase the cost of health insurance ...hell, it can become like the next "credit check". "Sorry, we'd love to have you but your DNA is too flawed." SLIPPERY SLOPE
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.