Unless Mr. Smith has a kidney disease or some other illness that would cause him to shed epithelial cells, he will not have any cells of any kind and no DNA in his urine. How many people missed this? The writers, director, producers, everyone on set. And everyone on this board? Oops.
shareIn case no one mentioned it, maybe Mr. Brooks was playing on Mr. Smith's ignorance of DNA proof.
I don't know if it's true or not. I'm not a doctor, and, if I was, I would probably be the kind of doctor where DNA proof isn't my specialty. Just because you have "Dr." in front of your name doesn't mean that you're an expert on everything. Right, Dr. Laura?
I`m sorry for my lack of manners, but I`m not used to escorting men.
I'm thinking they could find some of his DNA, after creating such a mess...if they took enough samples there would probably be some DNA.
shareIn case no one mentioned it,YES! MANY people have mentioned it MANY times in this thread, since 2010.
It's like Clayton Williams, GOP candidate for Governor in Texas, said in 1990, "... just relax and enjoy it."
Isn't that what a movie is supposed to be about? Enjoyment? Just pretend somebody swabbed the guy's cheek with a Q-Tip instead, if that'll make ya' happy!
Your post has hunted me for few years. "DNA in urine? is there?"
I did look up internet and all I could find was the ones you mentioned like disease and epithelial cells.
However, just yesterday, my biotechnology prof. has told me all about DNAs in urine.
When cells are broken down, histones and some other proteins that binds to DNA will remain intact and those will still be bound to DNAs.
By simply amplifying the remaining DNAs and running them through polyacrylamide gel, they could be identified. But of course they have to have the person's DNA in the database.
As soon as I heard my prof's answer, I had to come here to leave a comment...
five damn years later lol
Don't worry about the late reply. They also fairly recently discovered that urine isn't sterile after all, which the good doctor still believed to be the case back in 2010 :P
This isn't a plot hole in the least. Mr. Brooks told Mr. Smith that he could be identified from the DNA in his urine at the murder scene. Just because he said it doesn't mean it's true. Obviously Mr. Brooks would know this not to be true, but he would also know that Mr. Smith didn't know this. I'm sure the majority of people wouldn't have known.
As far as the thought that the only evidence the police would have had was the supposed DNA from the scene because there is no other evidence aren't taking into account some things. We know that Mr. Brooks had a copy of Mr. Smith's key to the safety deposit box that would have all of the pictures that Smith had taken of the couple previously, as well as the male flight attendant's account of the picture taking and that Smith was lying about this. It's also safe to assume that Mr. Brooks was able to find other ways to link Mr. Smith with the murders since he wanted to make sure they were pinned on someone else so he couldn't be arrested for it.
Don't play leapfrog with a Unicorn.
I don't think it was meant to be true but throw Mr Smith off and distract him.
shareu can get DNA from urine:
http://www.forensicdnacenter.com/forensic-faqs.html
https://youtu.be/93sGUFpVxFI
Wow, great thread.
Since the pattern here is that we have to declare our job -- I am also a doctor and I have thought about this over the years.
So I did some research ...turns out that female indeed has a lot more epithelial cells so DNA from them is easy. But males have some epi cells also...and with DNA amplification and esp mitochondrial DNA techniques you can get enough to ID Mr. Smith
Ref -- https://www.promega.com/~/media/files/resources/conference%20proceedings/ishi%2010/poster%20abstracts/38smuts.pdf?la=en
You are wrong by the forensicdna statement
Are you able to get a DNA profile from urine?
Yes. A profile can be obtained from urine.
"I do not like mixing up moralities and mathematics."
Churchill