Jump to content

DNA on record


seph

Recommended Posts

A lot of the concern about being wrongly identified stems from earlier days (not so long ago!) when DNA matches needed to be examined by 'experts' and 'opinions 'given as to how close the match might be.

 

Modern techniques are much more certain, and the level of doubt now billions against millions before.

 

No longer whether it's your DNA or not, but explaining how it got there is the area of uncertainty.

RNLI Shoreline Member

Member of the Angling Trust

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just a thought.....

 

What happens to all the small blood samples we give as newborn children. We all (except foreigners) have our heel pricked and a nice heel print is left on a peice of card that is sent away.

 

Does anyone actually know where the blood sample goes, who has it now and what can they do with it?

 

Certainly not back then, but is it a possible DNA sample today?

 

....just a thought! :huh:

 

Garth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that with modern forensic methods and DNA being 100% foolproof, we should be thinking of going back to capital punishment. Do we as the tax payer really need to be keeping the likes of Ian Huntley and Ian Brady alive.

 

Yogi. :)

Take nothing but photo's.

Leave nothing but footprints.

Kill nothing but time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A lot of the concern about being wrongly identified stems from earlier days (not so long ago!) when DNA matches needed to be examined by 'experts' and 'opinions 'given as to how close the match might be.

 

Modern techniques are much more certain, and the level of doubt now billions against millions before.

 

No longer whether it's your DNA or not, but explaining how it got there is the area of uncertainty.

 

Leon,

I tend to disagree, yes techniques have improved but DNA evidence is still not foolproof. Remember expert witnesses have in the past over egged the system saying how it's a million to one chane of it not being right when it was really in the tens of thousands. And whilst that sounds a lot that still means there's 1000's of people that you could match up with.

 

The only time such tecniques should be used is when the defence and prosecution have their own expert witnesses so as not to technobabble and mislead the courts.

 

You can guess from the above, I'm not in favour.

 

Rob.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that with modern forensic methods and DNA being 100% foolproof, we should be thinking of going back to capital punishment. Do we as the tax payer really need to be keeping the likes of Ian Huntley and Ian Brady alive.

 

Yogi. :)

i think your being very nieve ,photography in its day in identifying people was "fool proof" as was finger printing ,we know both are not and doupt certainly should be put on DNA since the people who claim its results have a vested interest in its practices.

no! DNA to whittle down the suspects then hard evidence to convict them ,not "opinions" that they did and bugger all else to back it up

:rolleyes:

Believe NOTHING anyones says or writes unless you witness it yourself and even then your eyes can deceive you

None of this "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" crap it just means i have at least two enemies!

 

There is only one opinion i listen to ,its mine and its ALWAYS right even when its wrong

 

Its far easier to curse the darkness than light one candle

 

Mathew 4:19

Grangers law : anything i say will  turn out the opposite or not happen at all!

Life insurance? you wont enjoy a penny!

"To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors, is sinful and tyrannical." Thomas Jefferson

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As far as I'm aware most peoples DNA is already on record, via a blood test given at birth.

 

It can't be used. Those blood samples are probably destroyed but you can't just get someones DNA and expect it to stand up in court because the law doesn't work like that.

 

Rob.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Personally I wouldn't give any government any more data about myself than I absolutely had to. I have seen too many innocent people jailed on poor evidence and too many fingerprints appear in places the accused has never been.

 

If they can't get the truth about WMD correct what chance has an innocent man with planted DNA when it suits someone in power to get him off the streets for some reason.

 

The nanny state has already gone too far. With everything we have introduced since 911 we have already lost the war on terror. They wanted to defeat our democracy and the turkeys are already voting for Christmas, scared by government propaganda and the media complicity in it.

Join the SAA today for only £10.00 and help defend angling.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What you should be asking yourself is why they DON'T keep records of everyone's DNA. It's certainly not because they care about civil liberties! I suspect it is because, contrary to what their experts will stand up and say in court, the chances of you and I having matching DNA isn't billions to one at all. The chances of us both having identical 13-loci STR profiles might well be 1 in 6 billion on truly random mathematical grounds, but is that really valid? How random can these things be if we are both male, white, English (and probably even related if we went back twenty generations or so)?

If they took 60 million DNA samples from different people and then found even two matches, the system would be rendered useless! No jury would ever convict on that basis.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If they took 60 million DNA samples from different people and then found even two matches, the system would be rendered useless! No jury would ever convict on that basis.

 

Unfortunately that's not true. Odds are much worse than that and Juries convict on that evidence all the time. Remember the prosecution would cite your example as 1 in 30 million chance of there being an identical match. And they'd probably compare that to the chances of something unimaginable happening. Remember juries are meant to be ordinary people and rely on guidance from experts.

 

Rob.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We and our partners use cookies on our website to give you the most relevant experience by remembering your preferences, repeat visits and to show you personalised advertisements. By clicking “I Agree”, you consent to the use of ALL the cookies. However, you may visit Cookie Settings to provide a controlled consent.