I'm no expert here but some thoughts come to mind:
- DNA testing is not 100% accurate even in the best of times. As evidence it is presented as a percentage based accuracy. So other evidence (even circumstantial is needed).
- Being arrested comes before DNA tests (usually) so they'd have to have a suspicion(sp?) first. If the test fails, they'd probably check some background anyway.
- To be convicted for a crime you not only would need to be at the scene but you would also not be somewhere else. iow: it's likely that the donor has a perfect alibi.
(never mind the fact that the donor could live thousands of miles away...)
- Don't the DNA tests show 'weird' results if the blood has been contaminated?
- Are tests done more than once to make sure?
In general: it's possible, but not likely in my opinion.
__________________
"Do not kill. Do not rape. Do not steal. These are principles which every man of every faith can embrace. "
- Murphy MacManus (Boondock Saints)
|