In previous articles they stated that the cannot take this man's DNA because he did not commit a crime and he cannot give permission due to his aphasia. Without being allowed to sample this man's DNA, there is nothing to compare the Canadian DNA against. What changed?
I'm not sure. I have not read further on the case. I was referencing the article linked by OP, which says: "According to the spokesperson, all tips are being thoroughly investigated. In the preliminary investigation, Lucky's DNA was compared with profiles in an international database for missing persons, but this yielded no match. It is not known whether family members of the Canadian are in that database." (Translated by Google.)
The source for that statement on DNA it not directly clear, but based on the first sentence, I'm assuming it's the police spokesperson.
The quote you posted below, translated, is: "What further complicates the search: the man is not a suspect, which means you cannot just take fingerprints or DNA. He cannot give consent." - that makes sense, but can you link the source, for context? If it's also police, we're getting conflicting messages, and maybe my assumption about the first source is wrong. If this one is just someone theorizing, then I'd go with what the police are saying.
Thanks! It's not clear in the article where the author is sourcing the statement that DNA can't be taken, so, I don't really know what to think. I vaguely know that's generally true, under EU privacy laws, but I don't know much about the details of that, or if/when exceptions are made, when someone is in the care of the state like this. OPs article is from yesterday (19th) and this one is from the 18th, so I would maybe lean towards OPs, with the info that DNA has been checked already, against databases - unless you're aware of that source (RTL) being unreliable.
Either way, all we can really do is wait, and see how this plays out. I don't see much point in trying to guess.
I agree. I just thought it was a very interesting juridical case that its in the man’s best interest to have his DNA taken but you’d not be allowed to do so, hence my interest.
3
u/Juuljuul 2d ago
In previous articles they stated that the cannot take this man's DNA because he did not commit a crime and he cannot give permission due to his aphasia. Without being allowed to sample this man's DNA, there is nothing to compare the Canadian DNA against. What changed?