1) Based on your findings, were any of the suspects present at the crime scene? Support your conclusion with specific evidence.
Suspect 4 was present at the crime scene because the DNA sample matches. We know this because the lines are exactly the same as the sample collected on the crime scene.
2) Why do people's DNA patterns differ so greatly?
People's DNA differ so greatly because no one has the same DNA. DNA is the instruction manual to how our body works, how we look like, how we act and also the disease and traits we carry. No one is the same, therefore, no one's DNA is exactly the same.
3) How would your conclusions be affected if you learned that the suspect whose DNA matched the evidence had an identical twin?
Even though they are identical twins, since no one has the same DNA, I think they each have a very slight difference. It would be a shame if the investigators read the DNA wrong and accused the wrong twin.
4) Suppose you are a defense lawyer. DNA evidence indicates that the bloodstain at the scene of a crime belongs to your client. Do you think this DNA evidence should be enough to convict your client?
This means that my client was at the place of the murder but does not necessarily mean that he is the murderer. The murderer could have threatened him with a knife, cut him and there would be a blood stain. Investigators can look into the DNA and my client may be the murderer. But there is also a chance that he isn't. Sometimes, DNA is not enough to prove someone guilty.
Suspect 4 was present at the crime scene because the DNA sample matches. We know this because the lines are exactly the same as the sample collected on the crime scene.
2) Why do people's DNA patterns differ so greatly?
People's DNA differ so greatly because no one has the same DNA. DNA is the instruction manual to how our body works, how we look like, how we act and also the disease and traits we carry. No one is the same, therefore, no one's DNA is exactly the same.
3) How would your conclusions be affected if you learned that the suspect whose DNA matched the evidence had an identical twin?
Even though they are identical twins, since no one has the same DNA, I think they each have a very slight difference. It would be a shame if the investigators read the DNA wrong and accused the wrong twin.
4) Suppose you are a defense lawyer. DNA evidence indicates that the bloodstain at the scene of a crime belongs to your client. Do you think this DNA evidence should be enough to convict your client?
This means that my client was at the place of the murder but does not necessarily mean that he is the murderer. The murderer could have threatened him with a knife, cut him and there would be a blood stain. Investigators can look into the DNA and my client may be the murderer. But there is also a chance that he isn't. Sometimes, DNA is not enough to prove someone guilty.
WoW!!! thank you so much Caoline
ReplyDelete