Let's go back to Cece Moore because she's so good explaining this.

Because that really just ties that one person to that item.

Now, it was likely that this was touched DNA. Certainly it's possible there was blood.

They didn't tell us what type of DNA, but most likely it was touched DNA. And that would

typically be just a few skin cells.

This might have been a very small amount of DNA.

But because of today's technological advances, we can detect even the tiniest bit of DNA.

How reliable is touch DNA if it is skin cells in comparison to say blood?

It's a great question. It is more transferable. So of course you would like to have blood.

You would like to have semen or saliva. And they might. You know, they haven't shown all their cards. We don't know all that they have.

But touch DNA, now that we can use it because of the sensitivity of our equipment,

it also means you have to be more cautious about using DNA as your only evidence.

So it's a really positive thing that they clearly have other evidence.

This is just one piece of it.

We have seen DNA, touch DNA transfer in other cases.

Of course, it's fairly rare, but it is something that you have to be aware of and make sure

that there are other aspects of the case also pointing at the same person.

Cici, good news, I guess. It's hard to commit murder without leaving something behind.

That's right. Yeah, I've been saying this for weeks. That type of violent, intimate crime,

it is virtually impossible not to leave something behind,

even if you are a criminology PhD student. So I am not at all surprised they were able to find

something. So I think I really liked that report because she so explains it and so articulately.

...