|
Not "There you go", damnit.
The argument is that the perpetrator always leaves DNA evidence on the scene.
Of course there will always be SOME form of marking or evidence in a crime, I was under the impression we were arguing with regard to viable biological evidence.
Finding a sneaker imprint is a fuckload different than a fingerprint, hair follicle, and blood sample.
I'm (and others are) saying that not everybody leaves behind DNA!
Your quote is self-evident and meaningless to this argument.
|