A bad day for dna.
spoty
Posts: 11,195 Forum Member
✭✭
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2113025/Teenager-wrongly-accused-rape-DNA-contamination-released-prison.html
I know it is a DM item, but the Manchester Evening News would not copy & paste for me?.
If this can happen I feel that it is going to become a useless tool.
ps, ds keeps freezing and I ment to add a bit more to this.
I know it is a DM item, but the Manchester Evening News would not copy & paste for me?.
If this can happen I feel that it is going to become a useless tool.
ps, ds keeps freezing and I ment to add a bit more to this.
0
Comments
No, but now we know any evidence could be tainted.
it happens on the Barry George case, where one particle of ballistic discharge lead to him being convicted of the murder of Jill Dando. In the appeal it was demonstrated how easy the particle may have been the result of cross contimination.
Juries latch onto forensics becuase they they want firm 100% evidence, unfortunetly it is not that easy.
possibly. PROBS unlikely.
Speaking as as a person whos grtx3 aunt was done (wrongly if newspapers are to be believed) of murder back in the day.
If we get one wrongun we get one wrongun.
But theres always been that risk of contamination with DNA evidence. And its usually something that defense lawyers claim in court. Its all about assessing the probabilities and considering other evidence.
We knew that before.
It is not just contamination that needs to be considered.
One doctor was arrested for rape. The case was clear cut, the woman named him, and forensic evidence showed his DNA was inside her and on her knickers. Strangely he denied having sex (usually rapists claim it was consensual }. Later the woman admitted going through his bin finding a used condom, and planting the evidence on herself
if the police had not dug deeper, the guy could easily have ended up in prison with everyone saying "he was clearly guilty, 100% end of!"
Any evidence could be contaminated if not handled correctly , we just have to trust that usually it is not and in defence counsel .
Yes, I think at the time 60% of the population were not convinced it was him so I suppose it has always been questioned .
I am sorry if my answers will be slow, but my curser keeps sticking and I have to log off to start again?
Its precision really isn't in doubt. It can identify an individuals DNA with a probability of only about 1 in a billion chance of it being wrong, Its contamination thats always been the problem.... The PCR technique in DNA typing can mean even a single cell can identify someone... so even a hair cell shed onto a coat when passing someone on a street and then taken into a house can be ID'd. Doesn't mean they were ever in the house or anywhere near a crime scene.
Perhaps I should have added "as evidence" Still a bad day for it though.
If one tube next to another can give out false results what bs are we beeing fed? Perhaps their 16 million? [whatever] chance in one should be curved?
I never said life would come to a stand still, just pointing out that dna can be a load of crap, backed up by lies and statistics.
But hay just laugh, untill in happens to someone you know.:p
Well it didn't work for this guy, even though the woman had said she was attacked by a black guy?
Dna should be a back up for guilt or innocence, not a mind reader that knows they 'must' have done it.