- Jan 12, 2017
- AFL Club
- West Coast
Exactly what said, as the newspaper says, they run a familial technique (family) on the DNA from the crime scene.They don't 'run the cousin's DNA as familial', it's not how it works.
1. They have the killer's/suspect's DNA.
2. They find someone during testing of suspects or people of interest, or whatever, that's a close but not exact DNA match.
3. If it's a close match to the killer's DNA they then check the DNA of close relatives of that person.
I can't think of any reason they'd be checking relatives of your cousin after testing him unless their DNA is on Ciara's body (seemingly as well as his because he touched her on the night, allegedly). None.
So for example they my cousins familial against the crime scene sample.
If they run familial technique via a criminal database.
Its not him but its someone in the immediate family.
As opposed to non familial techique prior the evidence room audit which included the Kimono. As soon as familial technique was run on the criminal database.
But in this case neither my cousin or I are on the criminal database.
So while none of our family were on a criminal database, a familial technique would have returned a result.
To assume they would just run an individuals DNA in order to exclude them from DNA on Ciaras body in contemporary technique is nuts. (2015).
The potential for incidential capture in the broader scope is just too tempting.
They were dealing with prime demographic in a time with only 1 million people in Perth. (1996). How many were males between 20 to e0 years of age.
Does anyone know what year DNA was admissiable in WA courts?