One thing in the reporting today begs a question in my mind. The BBC news says that there was no ID on the gunman, and that he was identified via DNA. Does that mean that his (or one of his relatives?) DNA was is in the FBI/federal/state/police records because of a previous arrest/crime? Or is DNA collected more widely in the US than here in the UK?
One thing in the reporting today begs a question in my mind. The BBC news says that there was no ID on the gunman, and that he was identified via DNA. Does that mean that his (or one of his relatives?) DNA was is in the FBI/federal/state/police records because of a previous arrest/crime? Or is DNA collected more widely in the US than here in the UK?