PonyFans.com

Lawyers please weigh in. I know this means that he didn't necessarily sexually assault the girl, but yikes.

http://espn.go.com/college-football/sto ... on-accuser

shocking.

DNA can't prove a match, it can only prove a mismatch. The DNA test is not a full mapping of the genetic code.

I read somewhere that there's like a 1-in-2.2 trillion chance the DNA isn't his. Sounds like a match, but obviously doesn't prove a crime was committed. I'm assuming his only defense now is consensual sex

More like one in 5 million. Not likely it's not his yet you can't say it's his 100%. If the DNA was a mismatch it would be 100% accuracy. It can only exonerate with 100% certainty.

Well, the Heisman Award ceremony is going to be awkward this year

Article did say 1 in 2.2 trillion which means they included that dead guy who's wife slept next to for a year, and everyone who voted in Chicago for the past decade.

I am in no way claiming he is guilty or not, just saying that TV shows have exaggerated when they say they have a DNA match. Here's a good read about the whole process for those interested:

http://science.howstuffworks.com/dna-profiling.htm

and another reference: http://science.howstuffworks.com/life/g ... dence6.htm

It comes down to precision, not the actual coincidental chance of a match (~1 in 100 Billion). There's more of a chance the interpreter would get the results wrong. It's a great tool nonetheless and helps many go free if wrongfully convicted in the past as well as helps bolster another set of evidence like fingerprints etc.

I am too lazy to read what you linked. What I find amazing is when it is said the DNA evidence was tainted so it cannot be used even though it shows 1 out of however many million it belongs to a certain person. How amazing would it be for blood of another person get tainted and then exactly match OJ? Just baffles me, but so does a fax machine.

And we're talking on a message board with a series of on and off electric signals interpreted into zeros and ones in a long combination of protocols and receivers. Mind = blown?

That dog understands it better than I. But I can get the lid off of a jar of peanut butter and he cannot.

mrydel wrote:That dog understands it better than I. But I can get the lid off of a jar of peanut butter and he cannot.

Point goes to Mrydel.

mrydel wrote:That dog understands it better than I. But I can get the lid off of a jar of peanut butter and he cannot.

Yes, but the dog can do things that you probably cannot (if you even wanted to)....

Hm. My dogs don't have any issues getting into peanut butter jars... or anything else for that matter.