Imagine you are a jurist in a murder trial. The prosecutor presents evidence that the defendant is blood type O, and the blood found at the crime scene is type A. He concludes the defendant could have been at the crime scene, since it is well known that blood type O can be produced from blood type A. Is his argument convincing (does this prosecutor understand bloodtypes?)?
No the argument is not convincing as it is not possible to change blood types whatsoever. So unless the blood type is not exactly the same, the defendant can not be guilty. The blood type is determined by the antigens present on the surface of the RBC and these antigens can not just be removed or changed. Removal of antigen is possible by certain enzymes but it is not much effective yet.
Feel free to leave a comment down below for any furhter query. Good rating would be appretiated if you find my answer helpful. Thank you.
Get Answers For Free
Most questions answered within 1 hours.