Was Pete Anderson Guilty

Based on all of the non-genetic evidence given, Pete Anderson is guilty. If the verdict was based off of the morphology of X. tortifolia and X. confertifolia, I would say that he was innocent since they are found at the archeological site and the Johnson mine; but that’s not the reality of this case. Although the three Southern plants from Utah looked similar from the outside with the white petals and yellow center, they have different preferences when it comes to soil and location. X. tortifolia plants grow on slopes near the bottom of washes with gray soils, X. confertifolia grows on mesa tops where there’s brown soil and X. cronquistii prefers grey soil but it is rare and appears in only a few places. The fact that X. cronquistii is only found in a few locations is important because the state agent realized (after consulting with the botanist) that X. cronquistii grows in the same area that the looted Anasazi site is in. It appeared that Pete’s innocence was about to be proven when the State Geologist said that the Johnson mine is in the same geological area as the archeological site and it both has soil with a brownish, silty top layer and a gray layer beneath it but
The botanist advised the state agent to use the size of the protein “compositase” to find the identity of the plant in the pot. This process uses electric currents to draw DNA out from the wells formed in the gel because the DNA is negatively charged and it would try to move through the gel to get away from the negative side of the electric current. This allows the scientists to see it’s behavior as it moves through the gel as the smaller proteins move more quickly than the larger ones. Since DNA is colorless the scientists stain the sample in order to visualize the protein and then they can compare the sizes and patterns of the three flowers to the sizes and patterns from the plant in the