And this is the DNA fallacy. It is not evidence of guilt on it its own. DNA needs to be integrated with the other evidence. It can mislead. Contamination is a serious issue and in this case the DNA of both parents and Madeleine will be all over the flat and possibly elsewhere. The collection and anti-contamination procedures are very important too. By the way have you ever heard of Angela Psaila. If not look her up. The police told her that her blood had been found in the flat and made her perjure herself against the Cardiff Five. Her certain knowledge that she was not in the flat when Lynette was murdered was overborne by the sly policing you describe. She became a police witness and was so thoroughly convinced that she was there by the end that she shouted down defence lawyers, saying her blood was there. It wasn't. 13 years later she was flabberghasted to be informed that DNA had proved that her blood was not there. Fast forward a few years and find another vulnerable witness or suspect and you will still get admissions and if the DNA results are inconvenient it will be manipulated like it was in Schiedammer for example.
In the spirit that I hope you're not on a deliberate wind up, I shall respond "sensibly".
At no point in my post did I say that DNA evidence alone was evidence of guilt. You've put up a strawman argument and refuted something I didn't say. I gave an example in which the police could legally exert pressure on a guilty suspect and they would potentially confess whereby an innocent would not.
I simply can't believe that you're trying to refute my (hypothetical anyway) example by using a very vulnerable and clinically retarded person with an IQ of just 55. It's hardly representative of anything, is it. Well that's my take anyway, others may have different views.
STM is the stop the myths forum. There are at least 5 members here that are on that forum too but they mainly use different names there.
