Cece Moore

It might be more complex, meaning there might be mixtures of blood.

Cases I've worked where there was a frenzied stabbing, almost always the knife has slipped and cut the suspect as well.

But then you have a mixture and you might even have a mixture of three people in this case

Maybe you have his blood plus two of the victim's blood, for instance, and they have to do what's called deconvolution, where they extract out the victim's DNA and are left with just that suspect's DNA.

And so it's possible that that could have taken more time, which is possibly why they were focusing on this knife sheath for the affidavit.

I imagine that was touch DNA.

It means there was just one DNA contributor.

So that's a much more straightforward DNA sample than if they have a mixture otherwise, which could be why they focused on that for the affidavit because it's the most straightforward.

Now that was likely touch DNA, unless he happened to leave a little bit of blood on that, but I would guess it's touch DNA.

And that is just a few skin cells most likely.

So that's not very much DNA.

And that really illustrates how far technology has come.

It will be.

And I agree with you.

Touched DNA is not the optimal DNA sample that you would want to have in this case.

Let's hope maybe it was a drop of blood instead.

And I'm wrong about my supposition that it was touched DNA.

But I think that the prosecution can argue that if he had handled it, then somebody else would have had to have handled it.

And their DNA should also be on there.

And you would see a mixture or you would see their DNA as the primary DNA.