Crosswords6 mins ago
low copy number dna
do you think low copy number dna evidence will be used in court again?
Answers
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.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
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
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.
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.
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?"
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?"
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.