←back to thread

248 points punnerud | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.22s | 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 #
inetknght ◴[] No.43402747[source]
> 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

Framing someone else is not a perfect crime. A perfect crime finds no criminal, accused or convicted.

replies(1): >>43403955 #
1. UncleEntity ◴[] No.43403955[source]
Creating reasonable doubt as a backup plan in case your perfect caper isn't as perfect as you believe is just good practice.

Rule 43(a) in the criminal procedures handbook IIRC.