ChatterBank1 min ago
The Shortcomings Of Dna Evidence
There have been several posts, over the years, on the value of DNA testing for the determination of the guilt of a potential suspect.
TV series and various stories in papers have tended to reinforce the notion that DNA testing is virtually infallible.
Thought you might be interested in a rather disturbing story from France, which highlights both the benefits and the flaws of DNA evidence.
Although the DNA evidence was sufficient to narrow the suspects down, it is currently almost impossible to distinguish between 2 identical twins - and unless they can find some means to positively distinguish between them, the serial rapist is likely to be acquitted.......
http://
TV series and various stories in papers have tended to reinforce the notion that DNA testing is virtually infallible.
Thought you might be interested in a rather disturbing story from France, which highlights both the benefits and the flaws of DNA evidence.
Although the DNA evidence was sufficient to narrow the suspects down, it is currently almost impossible to distinguish between 2 identical twins - and unless they can find some means to positively distinguish between them, the serial rapist is likely to be acquitted.......
http://
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by LazyGun. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
The weakness in the pro-DNA argument isn't the validity of the DNA testing, it's on whether the presence of one person's DNA points the finger to their guilt.
Just think where you have left traces of your DNA over the last few years, and how that could be transported on. Still feeling confident in the method ?
This was brought home to me several years ago when reading a library book in bed, and what looked suspiciously like a pubic hair dropped out of the book.
Now suppose that person was a victim of rape say, how would I explain their pubic hair in my bed ? Coincidence ? Would a jury accept that ?
Just think where you have left traces of your DNA over the last few years, and how that could be transported on. Still feeling confident in the method ?
This was brought home to me several years ago when reading a library book in bed, and what looked suspiciously like a pubic hair dropped out of the book.
Now suppose that person was a victim of rape say, how would I explain their pubic hair in my bed ? Coincidence ? Would a jury accept that ?
@Canary Interesting, the identifcal twin thing. And of course, you are right - DNA can get anywhere and everywhere.
It is important to note that DNA testing, or forensic DNA profiling, is not the same thing as full genome sequencing ; rather they look for a pattern match in one or two specific regions, rather like forensic fingerprint analysis. This is fine for 99.9 % of DNA profiling, since there is usually enough variability in the areas they actually examine to make a positive match, but it is not infallible, nor is it whole genome sequencing, which is what i think some people imagine DNA testing actually is, from the various media representations.
It is important to note that DNA testing, or forensic DNA profiling, is not the same thing as full genome sequencing ; rather they look for a pattern match in one or two specific regions, rather like forensic fingerprint analysis. This is fine for 99.9 % of DNA profiling, since there is usually enough variability in the areas they actually examine to make a positive match, but it is not infallible, nor is it whole genome sequencing, which is what i think some people imagine DNA testing actually is, from the various media representations.
Identical twins have identical DNA because they are produced from the same fertilised egg, which splits into two, both halves containing the same chromosomes from mother and father. No scientist would attempt to different such twins by their DNA because he knows it’s impossible.
Everyone’s DNA is unique, so it would certainly be possible to be 100% sure if the whole of the DNA were tested. But that would be prohibitively expensive, so sufficient DNA is tested to give a result of millions to one against a mistake. This is as reliable as any sort of evidence and much more reliable than some – including eye-witness testimony, for example, which is notoriously unreliable.
Everyone’s DNA is unique, so it would certainly be possible to be 100% sure if the whole of the DNA were tested. But that would be prohibitively expensive, so sufficient DNA is tested to give a result of millions to one against a mistake. This is as reliable as any sort of evidence and much more reliable than some – including eye-witness testimony, for example, which is notoriously unreliable.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.