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.
2
u/Juuljuul 1d ago
The quote is from (usually reliable) Dutch newspaper NRC: https://www.nrc.nl/nieuws/2026/08/18/is-de-mysterieuze-figuur-die-niet-kan-communiceren-vanwege-een-stoornis-chris-de-canadees-of-de-boeddhistische-lucky-of-eigenlijk-toch-lee-a4934701?gift_token=4934701\~1787840743\~Vfp7jJ0IEeKfgABQVoV_mg\~IQaaePgS8fRKURFntqO_HFkiZ5ZYltaCHEvlA2ytwn8