ChatterBank0 min ago
Answers
1 to 3 of 3
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by jannyneve. 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.
hi,
i hope that this is question you are asking out of curiosity and not necessity. low copy dna is very expensive and only used for serious crimes. it does have problems associated with it. as for wining a conviction solely on low copy evidence.......its slim.
dna evidence is only part of the evidence portfolio. once dna is found which relates to a suspect further evidence is gained. i dont want to go into what other lines of enquiry are open to the investigators i do not know what your position is.
i hope that this is question you are asking out of curiosity and not necessity. low copy dna is very expensive and only used for serious crimes. it does have problems associated with it. as for wining a conviction solely on low copy evidence.......its slim.
dna evidence is only part of the evidence portfolio. once dna is found which relates to a suspect further evidence is gained. i dont want to go into what other lines of enquiry are open to the investigators i do not know what your position is.
hi,thanks for you answer,without going in to too much detail,someone i know was convicted of a serious crime last year,it was a cold case dating back nearly 20 years,the only evidence was a 9 loci dna profile match( not even a full match) obtained through low copy number dna,the only other piece of evidence was discerdited in court,the person is now in the process of aplying for an appeal and has always maintained their innocence.the person got ten years.
The profile is only 1 loci off a full one (The UK uses a system called SGM plus which looks a 10 loci and a sex determing area) so the statistics would still have provided a pretty big likliehood ratio but, in my honest opinion, that shouldn't have been enough to put them away, not on a DNA profile alone.
1 to 3 of 3
