07-18-2012, 11:56 PM
(07-18-2012, 11:12 PM)shitstorm Wrote: If there is unidentified DNA, wouldn't the cops request DNA samples from everyone we've heard of during this past year and a half?
There have been numerous cases were police only requested DNA samples from persons of interest and not people they simply questioned.
Plus part of the evidence has to be destroyed in order to compare DNA so why risk destroying all the evidence running random DNA tests? Unless there's a new non-destructive way for testing DNA now. If you look at the court documents, the prosecution pointed out when asking permission to DNA test the cig butt, that part of the evidence would have to be destroyed. This tells me that none of the cig butt was destroyed up until they made Sam, hence no DNA testing till that point.
I have heard that after the testing they can "save" the data so to speak but again, based on the prosecution's request to destroy evidence for DNA testing seems to weigh heavy on the fact that no prior DNA testing had been performed.
They might have swabbed everyone in this case but I personally doubt it...too much police work when you're looking for stories that don't add up. Even if they did, I doubt they ran tests on all the collected DNA of (correct me if I'm wrong) for over 200 people. As the court dockets state, DNA testing needs to be sent to specialists and its expensive.
I would love to know if they DID swab everyone though...if they did all they have to do is a run with the saved dna structures from the cig butt or the tape (once the DNA structure is saved). Again, it seems the strategy is to wait till you have a solid suspect before you do DNA testing because of price and resources (sigh).
Sorry for the redundant sentences.
"Unidentified DNA" more than likely means DNA that doesn't match already established DNA (Sam, Cameo, Johnny, Lisa). Having said that, until we know what all of the "Identified DNA" is, we'll not be able to know for sure what they mean by "Unidentified DNA."