Easy. You have 11. Eliminate the women because they would know it’s male based on DNA. Now we’re at 6. 4 were verifiably in different states at the time of the crime. 2 left. Stake them out for a bit and gather some garbage likely to have DNA. 1 sample is a perfect match.
Alternatively, those last 2 sample could both not match and then they just continue their investigation.
But my point is, those original eleven weren’t an exhaustive list of the possibilities, just the ones that happened to be in their database—so narrowing it down to one means nothing. It sounds entirely possible, and perhaps even likely, that the real perpetrator wasn’t on the list to begin with.
That’s not how DNA works. It’s not like a vague description of a person so they round up a bunch of perps for a line up. They would get an exact match on DNA before arresting someone.
Easy. You have 11. Eliminate the women because they would know it’s male based on DNA. Now we’re at 6. 4 were verifiably in different states at the time of the crime. 2 left. Stake them out for a bit and gather some garbage likely to have DNA. 1 sample is a perfect match.
Alternatively, those last 2 sample could both not match and then they just continue their investigation.
But my point is, those original eleven weren’t an exhaustive list of the possibilities, just the ones that happened to be in their database—so narrowing it down to one means nothing. It sounds entirely possible, and perhaps even likely, that the real perpetrator wasn’t on the list to begin with.
That’s not how DNA works. It’s not like a vague description of a person so they round up a bunch of perps for a line up. They would get an exact match on DNA before arresting someone.