←back to thread

248 points punnerud | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.827s | source
Show context
h1fra ◴[] No.43397159[source]
I have always wondered why DNA is an accepted evidence. It's so easy to contaminate a crime scene or bring someone else hair, skin cells, etc by mistake.
replies(4): >>43397344 #>>43398201 #>>43398743 #>>43408056 #
rwmj ◴[] No.43397344[source]
In theory, you could do a "perfect crime" by going to a seedy part of town, picking up a dropped cigarette butt, and leaving it at the crime scene, framing someone else.

In reality, criminals are angry, frightened, in a rush, high or stupid, and they make the most elementary mistakes, so DNA and fingerprints work just fine almost all the time. In like 99% of cases there's not much doubt about who did it, the main thing is to have a watertight case against them when they deny it.

replies(4): >>43398229 #>>43399611 #>>43401127 #>>43402747 #
1. adolph ◴[] No.43401127[source]
> going to a seedy part of town, picking up a dropped cigarette butt, and leaving it at the crime scene

I've sometimes conjectured collecting hair from barbershops and making a dusting bag that steadily fluffs out hairs to dirty up a crime scene. Maybe get some saliva from grocery store sample spoons.