298 Cases Solved. Advancing justice for missing persons, unsolved homicides, unidentified and unclaimed remains.
Forum Posts for Stephanie Anne Mullins: Be respectful. Abuse of these forums will not be tolerated.
I've been following Stephanie Anne Mullins' case for a while now, and something keeps gnawing at me about the trial. I know the jury found Jarvis D. Garrett not guilty, but I'm still puzzled by the DNA evidence that supposedly linked him to the scene. I get that DNA can be tricky and that it might not have been enough for a conviction, but it just seems odd that it wasn't looked into further. I've read a lot about how sometimes DNA can be transferred in unexpected ways, which makes me wonder if that's what happened here. Was there any detailed explanation during the trial about how his DNA was found? It's hard not to think about Stephanie's family and friends and the frustration they must feel knowing the case is still unsolved. I hope one day they get the answers they deserve. Anyone else have more insight into how DNA might be mishandled or misunderstood in cases like this?
