Comments on: Are They Ignorant, or Just Hoping We Are?

By: Kevin A

Kevin A — Wed, 13 Jan 2010 22:20:23 +0000

All right, since Bill pointed back to this one in 2010, as a lover of the truth about DNA in general (and with a crush on Emily Deschanel’s character), I must finally defend Bones and assume Bill was partly distracted during the critical moment.

This time, I found a transcript:
——
BOOTH: We have DNA evidence that shows that you swung the prybar into Tripp’s head.

SMALLS: According to the forensic report, the sample was very small, and was totally used up during the course of the test.

BRENNAN: It’s an accurate test.

SMALLS: But it can’t be repeated. And my client has a twin brother. Juries hate DNA evidence and twins. What’s that sound? I believe that’s reasonable doubt startin’ its engines.
——

It was an easy mistake for a person to make in a house where robins are head-banging their window.

In the end, the decision was made to prosecute even though they knew that the *jury* wouldn’t convict on the blood evidence (in order to bring the woman’s story out somehow; is that legal?).

So, the writers were completely aware of the facts about DNA and fraternal twins. Whether they knew anything about juries’ responses to expert testimony is the unsettling question for me.

“The Truth is Out There.” [Oh, people using science from science fiction shows, in a discussion, drive me nuts.]

By: bAT L.

bAT L. — Sun, 20 Apr 2008 07:14:48 +0000

I didn’t see the show either. In fact, I don’t watch all that much TV that’s not found from a computer anymore. Did one of the twins have a sex-change operation at any time in his / her life? If they looked very similar (heck, with plastic surgery and the like even if they didn’t), then this could very well have been the case, which means they still would have been identical twins.

My sister and I wince at things like this as well. This is quite strange, however, since we both enjoy Japanese animation.

By: Lola

Lola — Thu, 17 Apr 2008 16:49:51 +0000

So many myths about twins!

Having two placentas does not necessarily mean the twins are fraternal. If the division happens very early (3rd day or before) they can develop completely separate placentas and amniotic sacs, though most of the time they share a placenta but have separate sacs. Very rarely will they share both.

Though some are, most identical twins are not mirrored. When they are, lots of things will be mirrored, including handedness, hair sworls and birth marks.

Though close, womb conditions are not identical for twins. The second the egg splits into two, their life trajectories begin to diverge. Though this would seem counterintuitive, it is most especially true if sharing both placenta and sac, where often one twin will be quite sickly. The minutest of differences in nutrient and toxin uptake at critical moments can result in vastly different outcomes.

Identical twins are not hereditary…fraternal are.

By far the most fascinating twins are fraternal twins that merge into one and are called chimeras. These can be different sexes and different races.

By: David

David — Thu, 17 Apr 2008 15:45:55 +0000

Re Pinny #28, after my post (#12) suggesting the DNA test, I thought about the placenta test (which my wife also pointed out to me). However, if you don’t do it at the time of birth, you’re left with the DNA test. If the Olson twin placentas checked out as fraternal, that’s fine, but the claim of fraternal has never been backed up with solid information. Not that they have to, it’s their lives, and if they want to call themselves fraternal, that’s fine (technically, it could be argued as correct, as all siblings are fraternal). But 1″ of height difference, handedness, freckles, and different looking teeth are all within the realm of identical twin variation.

See http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/05/health/05gene.html

By: arik1969

arik1969 — Thu, 17 Apr 2008 06:00:43 +0000

#7 Powers - Even though the in utero conditions for twins would be the same, the ways their bodies react to them would not necessarily be alike. Different people respond to environmental stimuli in different ways.

By: Pinny

Pinny — Wed, 16 Apr 2008 22:31:16 +0000

Re Pete (#21):

There are way to determine twin type that do not involve DNA testing.

20+ years ago when my younger, identical twin brothers were born, there was no DNA testing. Instead, my parents had the hospital do tests to determine if there had been one or two placentas. There was one, hence they are “identical twins,” though they are not perfectly identical physically.

By: Singapore Bill

Singapore Bill — Wed, 16 Apr 2008 18:31:52 +0000

The facts are never allowed to get in the way of the story. The fact that the story suffers is irrelevant to the producers as long as the show gets viewers. I enjoyed CSI when I first saw it, even allowing for the stretches they made. I gave up when they went back to the “zoom-in-on-the-reflection-in the photograph-and-blow-it-up-48-times-and-enhance-it-to-perfect-clarity-in-five-seconds-with-the-push-of-one=button” well once too often (it took about three times for me to grow sick of it). i hate “zoom-and-enhance” more than any other bull**** science in these shows.

By: Carl

Carl — Wed, 16 Apr 2008 06:33:03 +0000

Pete @23, In the case of mirror twins, identical twins always have opposite handedness, in fact.

By: Cidu Bill

Cidu Bill — Wed, 16 Apr 2008 04:05:34 +0000

Pepper, it was more along the lines of the lawyer saying “You can’t prove that the DNA on the weapon belongs to my client because her DNA is identical to that of the victim, her twin brother,” and the crack FBI agent and super-genius forensic doctor saying “Damn it, there goes our case.”

I did see the Law & Order episode referred to in the Wikipedia article, though.

By: pepperjackcandy

pepperjackcandy — Wed, 16 Apr 2008 03:56:32 +0000

Did you watch the ep, Bill? Because I’m wondering if this might not have been based on David Reimer’s story.