| Author |
Message
|
| Guest |
 Posted: Thu Jan 03, 2008 5:52 am Post subject: How reliable is DNA evidence... |
 |
|
|
I'm probably not the first and I suspect there will be a film out soon on this but just how much weight should be placed on DNA evidence?
As technology improves and DNA testing and techniques becomes more widely available I ask the following questions,
1) How easy will it be to replicate a sample of DNA such that a sufficient quantity could be planted at a crime scene to implicate a third person?
2) Were a prostitute to gain a sample of male DNA could such a sample be used to implicate a third person?
3) Could the theoretical possibility of the above be used as a defence where no other incriminating evidence is available?
We have already seen (in the UK) examples of evidence tampering leading to forensic 'specialists' being denounced.
P.S Happy new year all. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| marnixR |
| Posted: Thu Jan 03, 2008 9:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Cosmic Wizard
Joined: 10 Apr 2007
Posts: 2401
Location: Cardiff, Wales
|
the general take by the judges is that DNA evidence on its own is insufficient, unless it's corroborated by other types of evidence
especially when the samples analysed are miniscule, and the augmentation process may highlight contamination rather than the real evidence
_________________
if you find this place too crowded or too confrontational, how about trying Philosophorum,
the amicable forum where small is beautiful and even the trolls are intelligent
biology without evolution is but stamp collecting |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| goodgod3rd |
| Posted: Sun Jan 06, 2008 1:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Ph.D.
Joined: 02 Feb 2005
Posts: 899
Location: Donegal Ireland
|
As stated, DNA i suppose is not useful without other evidence,
On the point of framing somone, i suppose if the time was spent (and spent well) it could be done even without DNA. Just one more tool to use
_________________
Stumble through life |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| sunshinewarrior |
| Posted: Wed Jan 16, 2008 9:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Ph.D.
Joined: 26 Sep 2007
Posts: 974
Location: London
|
The Guardian has a note on the modern uses of DNA for cold cases. Some interesting stuff there.
They make the valid, but oft-forgot point that DNA is also used a lot for elimination of suspects. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| WVBIG |
| Posted: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:57 am Post subject: How reliable is DNA evidence... |
|
|
Forum Senior
Joined: 21 Jan 2008
Posts: 375
Location: West Virginia
|
| marnixR wrote: |
the general take by the judges is that DNA evidence on its own is insufficient, unless it's corroborated by other types of evidence
especially when the samples analysed are miniscule, and the augmentation process may highlight contamination rather than the real evidence |
What if the results of a miniscule amount of DNA from blood is corroborated by a morphology exam of hair from exactly the same spot?
_________________
Steven |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| WVBIG |
| Posted: Mon Jan 21, 2008 11:00 am Post subject: How reliable is DNA evidence... |
|
|
Forum Senior
Joined: 21 Jan 2008
Posts: 375
Location: West Virginia
|
How reliable is DNA if the person whose DNA is being tested, has had a blood transfusion from an anonymous donor?
_________________
Steven |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| sunshinewarrior |
| Posted: Tue Jan 22, 2008 7:35 am Post subject: Re: How reliable is DNA evidence... |
|
|
Forum Ph.D.
Joined: 26 Sep 2007
Posts: 974
Location: London
|
| WVBIG wrote: |
| How reliable is DNA if the person whose DNA is being tested, has had a blood transfusion from an anonymous donor? |
Red blood cells contain no nuclei and hence no nuclear DNA. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Bunbury |
| Posted: Tue Jan 22, 2008 11:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Ph.D.
Joined: 26 Sep 2007
Posts: 743
|
There is a poor fellow who has served 91/2 years of a life sentence for murder who is due to be released today because new DNA evidence points directly at another suspect. This unfortunate man was convicted on the skimpiest of circumstantial evidence. It seems to be a case where the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. Can’t think where I’ve heard of that before.
DNA may not be a foolproof tool for convicting the guilty, but it’s valuable at least in exonerating the probably-innocent.
http://www.9news.com/news/top-article.aspx?storyid=84911 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| sunshinewarrior |
| Posted: Wed Jan 23, 2008 7:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Ph.D.
Joined: 26 Sep 2007
Posts: 974
Location: London
|
Zigackly. I too made that point earlier, but not as clearly.
I suspect part of the problem is, of course, the lay public's (and hence the average juror's) inability to appreciate statistics and, in particular, Bayes Theorem and its application to test results, which means that sharp lawyers can at the very least, browbeat them into confusion, or more frequently, into being sure of entirely the wrong verdict. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Bunbury |
| Posted: Wed Jan 23, 2008 9:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Ph.D.
Joined: 26 Sep 2007
Posts: 743
|
| sunshinewarrio wrote: |
| I too made that point earlier |
Greetings from the department of redundancy department. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Sci-Realism |
| Posted: Tue Jan 29, 2008 5:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Freshman
Joined: 17 Jan 2008
Posts: 12
|
| To add on to what Sunshinewarrio said, the members of the Jury who are chosen, are ideally not meant to be capable of a good deal of reasoning in the case to provide their own conclusion. They are supposed to go with what they believe to be the correct conclusion based on the statements of the lawyers. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| WVBIG |
| Posted: Fri Mar 21, 2008 12:28 pm Post subject: How reliable is DNA evidence... |
|
|
Forum Senior
Joined: 21 Jan 2008
Posts: 375
Location: West Virginia
|
Ok. I have another question. How reliable can DNA be when you consider such things as illicit affairs, secret adoptions, & sperm banks?
_________________
Steven |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Orleander |
| Posted: Tue Mar 25, 2008 1:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Freshman
Joined: 25 Mar 2008
Posts: 90
|
I think DNA evidence is only as reliable as the scientist/lab processing it.
And as far as setting someone up with it...well, that's silly to me. Criminals aren't that smart.
I can't wait til getting DNA from fingerprints becomes more reliable. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Jeff1244 |
| Posted: Thu May 01, 2008 2:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Freshman
Joined: 30 Apr 2008
Posts: 13
|
| U can always use some one dna n make crimes n the person will be caught not u |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| serpicojr |
| Posted: Thu May 01, 2008 8:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Professor
Joined: 17 Jul 2007
Posts: 1128
Location: JRZ
|
| Jeff1244 wrote: |
| U can always use some one dna n make crimes n the person will be caught not u |
Yeah, I do that all the time. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
