- Joined
- Sep 20, 2018
- Messages
- 23,996
- SLU Posts
- 18459
The issue seems to be that there's insufficient research data about sycamore DNA, as opposed to human DNA, to make it useful evidence in court. If the prosecution tries to rely on evidence derived from traces of tree DNA found on the chainsaw, the forensic expert who produces that evidence will have to explain why the jury can be sure the DNA is that of a sycamore and, if they can be sure of that, how this proves the chainsaw was used to cut down that particular sycamore rather than any other sycamore in the area.
The Times article to which I linked says
More background
Evernote link
Evernote link



















