low copy number dna

[jannyneve]

do you think low copy number dna evidence will be used in court again?

[jake-the-peg]

I've not been happy about it for years and have said so often enough on this site.

It was systematically demolished in the OJ Simpson trial and although things have moved on there are still issues with it as we've seen recently.

I don't think there is any problem with it being used as coroborating evidence but hanging an entire conviction solely on it seems unsafe to me

[pauln90]

There are currently dozens of rape and nurder cases pending which have used low copy DNA.

At the moment the trials are under review and the technique is being studied to determine the practices and conduct involved

After all at the moment the confusion has been caused because one Judge ( in the Omagh trial ) questioned its reliability.

It is believed that a government study of the practice will shortly report that it is safe.

I think it is an important tool in crime detection and any ambiguity should be cleared up and fast.

[jannyneve]

but what about past cases where people have already been convicted and are in prison,if low copy dna evidence was the main evidence then surley they will have the right to appeal,

[jake-the-peg]

Rape cases are good examples of where it's coroberative evidence.

You (generally) have a witness and can use DNA evidence to back up that witnesses account.

You can also use it to identify a suspect and follow up on that suspect's whereabouts and hopefully find better evidence once that is established.

Having been a professional scientist (although not in forensics) I'm more cautious of cases where the only evidence is based on scientific data.

If you only have scientific evidence you have to ask the very serious question "Why is that?"

[kwicky]

I have noticed a distinct change in the law during the past few years. Instead of the prosecution needed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt the law has swung round in the accused having to prove his innocence. Take the McCanns where they are Aguidos and likely to remain for the next 20 years unless a body is found. Take Colin Stagg. Take that retrial of Jill Dando. Take the Birmingham Six. And many many more.

[jannyneve]

thats true kwicky,especially in cold cases where they can go back years ,when its virtualy impossible for someone to defend themselves as to wherabouts etc, as in many cases work records ,phone records,cant be traced that far back,

[buuuuurhaaan]

yes. i am speakin from buuuuurhaaan 1st hand experience. i am a very knowledgeable buuuuurhaaan person. i have a buuuuurhaaan nest. thanks buuuuurhaaan.