Mary Trump could give DNA in Trump rape case

[LiconaFan97]

Not necessarily, which is precisely why it wouldn't be legally admissible.

As noted in the article this sort of approach was used to identify the Golden State Killer.

But let me give you a hypothetical. If Mary's DNA proves that a close relative raped E. Jean Carroll can you think of a good reason DT wouldn't immediately give his DNA to clear his name?

[Mountain Man]

As noted in the article this sort of approach was used to identify the Golden State Killer.

But let me give you a hypothetical. If Mary's DNA proves that a close relative raped E. Jean Carroll can you think of a good reason DT wouldn't immediately give his DNA to clear his name?

As I noted in a previous post, in the case of the Golden State killer, the police used publicly available DNA databases to narrow their search, but they still needed to collect direct evidence to tie the suspect to the crimes.

As for Trump clearing his name, his name is cleared by default until there is sufficient evidence to prove his guilt in a court of law. "Innocent until proven guilty" is a sacred cornerstone of our justice system.

[LiconaFan97]

As I noted in a previous post, in the case of the Golden State killer, the police used publicly available DNA databases to narrow their search, but they still needed to collect direct evidence to tie the suspect to the crimes.

As for Trump clearing his name, his name is cleared by default until there is sufficient evidence to prove his guilt in a court of law. "Innocent until proven guilty" is a sacred cornerstone of our justice system.

I'm talking about the court of public opinion, not a criminal trial. If we determine that a close relative of MT raped E. Jean Carroll don't you think it would harm DT politically?

[oxmixmudd]

Not necessarily, which is precisely why it wouldn't be legally admissible.

Yeah - you live on those 1/1,000,000 probabilities.

Let's see how that tracks. She is known contact with DT and she accuses him of rape, she has the DNA of the rapist, and it is familial match for DT. hmm - how lucky she must be to just happens to pick a guy to blame that just happens to also be a familial match of the actual rapist/partner in the scam ...

No - what it means in this case is that she's telling the truth.

[oxmixmudd]

As noted in the article this sort of approach was used to identify the Golden State Killer.

But let me give you a hypothetical. If Mary's DNA proves that a close relative raped E. Jean Carroll can you think of a good reason DT wouldn't immediately give his DNA to clear his name?

I would note that finding a potential killer from a large DNA database is a whole different matter than naming a rapist falsely and having the DNA from the rape be a familial match for the named person.

MM's skepticism is 100% for any accuser of Trump, and 0% for any and all possible defenses of Trump.

[Gondwanaland]

Yeah - you live on those 1/1,000,000 probabilities.

Let's see how that tracks. She is known contact with DT and she accuses him of rape, she has the DNA of the rapist, and it is familial match for DT. hmm - how lucky she must be to just happens to pick a guy to blame that just happens to also be a familial match of the actual rapist/partner in the scam ...

No - what it means in this case is that she's telling the truth.

Not necessarily. Even if she were to go through all of that and have a match proven, etc.. That does not necessarily mean even then that she's telling the proof. For example she could have had consensual sex with him, and is now claiming rape years later. So not only would there need to be a match shed have to prove in a court of law that it was nonconsensual.

[LiconaFan97]

Not necessarily. Even if she were to go through all of that and have a match proven, etc.. That does not necessarily mean even then that she's telling the proof. For example she could have had consensual sex with him, and is now claiming rape years later. So not only would there need to be a match shed have to prove in a court of law that it was nonconsensual.

Trump has already denied they had consensual sex.

[oxmixmudd]

Not necessarily. Even if she were to go through all of that and have a match proven, etc.. That does not necessarily mean even then that she's telling the proof. For example she could have had consensual sex with him, and is now claiming rape years later. So not only would there need to be a match shed have to prove in a court of law that it was nonconsensual.

It would prove it was Donald Trump is the point. It puts to rest all claims she made up a sexual encounter with Trump.

As far as I know, Trump is not claiming consensual sex, he is denying any sort of encounter - 'she is not my type', and he is enlisting the Justice dept to defend him. Mary Trump's DNA would prove he is lying about the encounter.

[Gondwanaland]

Trump has already denied they had consensual sex.

And? Doesnt mean they didn't.

Bill "did not have sexual relations with that woman", even though Monica was • Edited by a Moderator • in the oval office

[Gondwanaland]

It would prove it was Donald Trump is the point. It puts to rest all claims she made up a sexual encounter with Trump.

As far as I know, Trump is not claiming consensual sex, he is denying any sort of encounter - 'she is not my type', and he is enlisting the Justice dept to defend him. Mary Trump's DNA would prove he is lying about the encounter.

Again that means little unless she can prove rape somehow. Bill Clinton denied anything with Monica too. What about it?

[Mountain Man]

I'm talking about the court of public opinion...

The court of public opinion has much looser standards and rarely depends on the facts.

[Mountain Man]

Yeah - you live on those 1/1,000,000 probabilities.

Let's see how that tracks. She is known contact with DT and she accuses him of rape, she has the DNA of the rapist, and it is familial match for DT. hmm - how lucky she must be to just happens to pick a guy to blame that just happens to also be a familial match of the actual rapist/partner in the scam ...

No - what it means in this case is that she's telling the truth.

How many other people in Trump's family tree would also match those markers?

But my guess is Mary Trump's offer won't be accepted. Way too much risk for the accuser.

[Cow Poke]

Not necessarily. Even if she were to go through all of that and have a match proven, etc.. That does not necessarily mean even then that she's telling the proof. For example she could have had consensual sex with him, and is now claiming rape years later. So not only would there need to be a match shed have to prove in a court of law that it was nonconsensual.

That's always a problem - in an actual litigated case of rape, it has to be proven that it was force-able and resisted.

[oxmixmudd]

Again that means little unless she can prove rape somehow. Bill Clinton denied anything with Monica too. What about it?

What it means without proof is that all the people claiming the women that accuse Donald Trump of sexual indiscretions owe them an apology.

And with strong proof Trump is lying about far more than Stormy Daniels, it puts all of the accusations to date in a different light.

Further - it highlights once again what an expert liar Donald Trump is. And given what he is accused of and what there is evidence of, that should be enough to make anyone concerned.

[oxmixmudd]

How many other people in Trump's family tree would also match those markers?

But my guess is Mary Trump's offer won't be accepted. Way too much risk for the accuser.

Only if she is not telling the truth. Still going for that 1 in a million. What - you think it was Don Jr.