Reply #287: It's certainly a point in the prosecution's favor

[jberryhill]

But the distinction is between a low probability "partial match" and what is normally a "match".

It is also not a huge coincidence if it turns out that a sample retrieved from a bathroom trashcan includes DNA bearing matter from a person who used the bathroom.

But when you talk about the "case" - the case so far involves two defendants, neither of whom are the subject of this match, and who are excluded by this match ("excluded" in the sense of this particular piece of evidence and this particular DNA result). So, someone needs at least another indictment.

There were four players identified in the photo session as possible participants in the attack. That's a bit under 10% of the persons at the party. The ID was a "90% accurate" ID, which is entirely subjective. Let's peg the partial match at a 1 in 100 shot for the moment (we'll know more later). So it is somwhere around a 1 in 20 shot, that any partial match would correspond to the player she ID'd (math is NOT my strong suit, so check that).

Then what you are left with, pace possible contamination, is a piece of evidence that says she scratched someone during a situation in which we know there was a disagreement over money, and she was separated from her purse.

Please note that I am not calling anyone a liar. The point is that a jury has got to buy this beyond a reasonable doubt.