Counsel in a trial are arguing that a DNA analysis isn’t proof that a particular person was at the scene of a crime. As a DNA an
alyst, you’ve identified a point that clearly matches the DNA sample and the suspects DNA. What should your response as an expert witness be? A.
Agree with the lawyer that one matching point is likely to be a coincidence
B.
Argue that the DNA, combined with other testimony, makes the suspect likely to have been there
C.
Argue that even one point of similarity in a DNA profile means the chances of a mistake are one in a billion
D.
Argue that the suspect is clearly guilty, and the DNA analysis is irrelevant
B. Argue that the DNA, combined with other testimony, makes the suspect likely to have been there
Explanation:
If the subject's DNA was at a crime scene, they are likely to have been there. However, this doesn't automatically mean they are guilty; they could have just been a bystander. You also have to take into account where the DNA sample was found and other testimonies.
The answer you seek is I have borne thirteen children, and seen most all sold off to slavery, and when I cried out with my mothers grief, none but Jesus heard me!
