The recent discovery of Richard III’s skeleton has already got conspiracy theorists and cynics whispering. Is it really feasible that DNA from reputed descendants can link rotting bones to a King killed in battle over 500 years ago? I got into conversation with a client in town today when the subject came up. Once upon a time she had instructed me in relation to proving paternity of her young son. She was adamant that only one man could have been the father of her child. When the results of the DNA tests were received, she was, therefore, completely dumbfounded as they totally exonerated him from fathering her child; their genetic make-up being completely incompatible. After satisfying ourselves as to the identity of the person who gave the sample and the circumstances in which it was given, financial constraints and economic good sense dictated against pursuing matters further. My client, however, continues to maintain that DNA sampling, despite scientific assurance, is deeply flawed. “I see they’re still at it,” she commented cheerily, as we talked on a wind-blown street. “Pardon?” I replied. “The DNA lot. They’ve just dug up a heap of bones in a car park and reckon they’ve found Richard III. Well, the last laugh’s on me; that was no King; it was that hapless lover of mine with whom I got even. I stabbed him in the head repeatedly then drove to Leicester and buried him next to my car one dark night. I always knew they’d never be able to trace my DNA to make the link.” I think she was joking.
