DNA compulsory

sidneyeric

Striker
The reason I like it is the fact that suspects get eliminated very quickly.

Sometimes it's the forensic investigators themselves who accidentally contaminate the evidence. The guide shares the bizarre example of Adam Scott, a man wrongfully convicted of rape when his DNA was found in a genital swab. Scott's DNA was a perfect match — a one in a billion probability — and it was the only evidence used to convict him, despite Scott's claim that he was more than 200 miles (322 kilometers) away the night of the incident.

Scott spent five months in custody before the truth came out. A technician in the crime lab had reused a plastic plate that contained a sample of Scott's saliva from an unrelated "spitting incident." Phone records also corroborated Scott's claim that he was in his hometown at the time of the attack.
This one didn't....
 
Last edited:

sidneyeric

Striker
It really doesn't ask the boards top legal eagles.
I don't need to, Ive read more than enough on it..

The "CSI effect" is strong enough that many jurors in criminal trials — and even some judges — have to be convinced that DNA found at a crime scene does not automatically mean that the person matching that DNA is guilty.
 
There was a programme on bbc 2 last night about a couple of lasses who were raped and murdered 3 years apart in the 80’s, they could not find the killer. Then came along DNA testing, they asked all the blokes in the local areas to give a sample, over 4000 did, they all proved negative, until someone overheard a lad in a local pub say he had got a mate to give his as he didn’t agree with it. The police arrested him, took the sample and he turned out to be the murderer.........possibly an argument for????
 

JohnSmithUK

Central Defender
The best bit is, people are paying to be added to DNA databases with all those family/ancestry/medical services. No way can the government ignore such an anount of data.
 

Top