With DNA only the guilty will go to prison

[TheTruthHere]

Think again

http://menmedia.co.uk...ter-after-dna-blunder

[rov1100]

Now they have found flaws in the DNA sampling I wonder whether the two killers of Stephen Lawrence will get a re-trial as the DNA was examined by the lab in question?

[starone]

The DNA was right though - it was some stupid idiot in the testing company who managed to get it contaminated somehow. However, I know what it is like to be accused of something when you are completely innocent and of the feeling of despair to think you could have been accused and there is no way to prove that it wasn't you.

[naomi24]

I didn't read that as having found flaws in DNA sampling - rather as human error.

[RATTER15]

Its a disgrace that this has happened but its still the best form of proof that we have, no matter what technique is used now or in the future it can still fail.

[ummmm]

No Rov, the police have always known they were guilty. They just couldn't prove it without reasonable doubt.

[TheTruthHere]

rov1100 They will get out in a few years and be paid large amounts of money as compensation.

[TheTruthHere]

ummmm I think they are guilty but the evidence was handled by people with no gloves on and kept in the same bags as other items over many years.

[bazwillrun]

"the police have always known they were guilty"

how ?

[RATTER15]

"the police have always known they were guilty"

"how ?"

The lady in the Cafe told them over a strong brew of Tetley's of course!!

[Gromit]

"the police have always known they were guilty"

how ? - They read it in the Daily Mail.

http://img.dailymail....perDM2502_468x433.jpg

[jake-the-peg]

Ratter illustrates so well why DNA evidence is so dangerous.

//it's the best form of evidence we have//

Really?
Better than say high quality CCTV?

Say the Police come around tonight and say you were seen in the vicinity of the last known movements of a murder victim?

Say they find a hair on your coat DNA matched to her

Say you got into a cab minutes after she left it

And say the jury think DNA is "the best form of evidence we have"

DNA is so dangerous because people think it's some sort of magic wand - maybe they thought the same about fingerprints at first - it's very dangerous to rely on DNA evidence without other corroberative evidence.

Hopefully the judges in this country are doing their jobs and banging this stuff into the heads of jurys

But I'm ever suprised how many people I see on all sorts of topics on here who think they know better than experts due to their fortuitious natural excess of "common sense"

And in such cases it makes me shudder

[Old_Geezer]

DNA matching is merely a tool. It doesn't make a verdict certain. Flaws or no flaws.

[RATTER15]

Jake, thats fine but how many crimes are committed in view of a CCTV camera.

and all of those points you make out are obviously taken into consideration, nobody gets convicted purely on DNA evidence! stop being silly!

[mickrog]

ummmm....trust the police?.......come back to the real world