Does response D answer the question 2.Would your answer change if the other man's DNA matched that found at the scene? The answer would be very different if Matias Reyes' DNA matched the DNA found at the crime scene. When police investigate crimes, DNA evidence is very useful because it can connect a suspect to a crime scene. Matias Reyes's statement that he raped the woman while she was running is strongly supported by DNA evidence found at the scene of the crime. This would make it less likely that the other people accused of this crime are involved. The fact that Reyes' DNA was found at the crime scene and not DNA proof linking the other people on trial would make the case for their release stronger. It would mean that the original convictions were based on incomplete or inaccurate proof, especially if they were based on confessions that were biased or unreliable in any other way. With the new DNA evidence, it's possible that the convictions of the people who were accused would be looked at again. It would be possible to go to court to overturn the rape convictions because the proof would show that Reyes was the only one who did it. Even though the DNA proof would mostly change the rape charge, it could also change how people see the other charges, like assault and riot, if the investigation and prosecution are brought into question. Overall, the matched DNA evidence would make it much more likely that the other people accused of rape are not guilty, which could lead to