Last Call for Gumshoes

Re:Last Call for Gumshoes by newsbinator on Wednesday October 07, 2020 @12:10AM (#24705218)

> The private eye went and sat in the pew behind her. At the end of the service, he followed her out, stopped her, and asked for help; he said he had Parkinson’s (he didn’t) and was having trouble licking the church’s donation envelope. The mother kindly obliged, leaving DNA-infused spittle behind (and the church a few dollars poorer).

Could DNA evidence obtained this way be admissible?

Would the defendant estate’s lawyer ask the mother in court if she had provided her DNA for analysis and she would say no?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Last Call for Gumshoes by michaelt on Wednesday October 07, 2020 @05:57AM (#24706708)

There would be chain-of-custody issues if anyone decided to dispute them, certainly.

The article says "Hillblom’s mother [...] had so far refused to comply with a court order to provide blood samples."

So ignoring chain-of-custody issues, if the court has made an order and the mother has refused, some would say it's better the order be enforced by subterfuge than by force.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Last Call for Gumshoes by 464736463 on Wednesday October 07, 2020 @01:04AM (#24705464)

If it's not then it's rediculous, the subject was already providing the material voluntarily so it's not like they were somehow burdened.

[ Parent | on HN ]