Last edited by a moderator:
Less likely that they would need DNA evidence for easily solvable crimes. If they did need DNA evidence in a situation where it is not easily found and picked up the wrong DNA they would likely lose the trail of the real killer leaving the case unsolved.It is still rather strange that, if I understand it correctly, the fingerprints have only surfaced in unsolved crime cases. Why should not the fingerprints be present at the sites of numerous indubitably solved crimes as well??
Apparently they are still uncertain about the contamination after testing swabs randomly and finding nothing so there may only be one in every who-knows-how-many swabs that are contaminated.Whatever happened with including a negative control? The DNA should have showed up in there as well.