"Martin Brown" <|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:a6a58d3b-d1fa-4a40-8f13-21e25bb6f5bb@24g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
On May 14, 8:06 am, Dead Paul wrote:
> I'm unsure if the British system is equally flawed but it's an angle
> which I had not previously considered.
> This account is relating what's currently happening in the USA.
>
> <<
> Like fingerprints, DNA are very powerful and scientifically sound
> evidence, when used to connect a known suspect to evidence found at the
> scene of the crime. Jurors are easily persuaded to accept the DNA link for
> someone who had already been suspected of a crime scene when told the odds
> against a false identification are 1 in millions or billions.
On its own the DNA match evidence is not all that exciting, but it
does suggest a list of people you might want to interview.
Fingerprints have also been known to have their problems most high
profile one recently being:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/634282.stm
>
> But DNA is far less certain when you compare one sample against all of the
> profiles in the database typically known as one-to-many. In that case the
> chances that a match between a DNA sample -- especially an incomplete one
> -- and a person in a DNA database could nab an innocent person has
> different math. Very different math.
But with any luck the innocent person will be geographically in the
clear. There is still a risk from false positives in a large database
though, but it still cuts down the number of suspects to a managable
number.
Hmm and if you are fingered and do not have an alibi, then you will almost
certainly be fitted up, unless you can definitely prove it was not you or
you were elsewhere watchout!
For example there was a case IIRC in Swindon of a man arrested for an
offence(domestic burglary) 100+ miles away, yet he was in a wheelchair and
no way could he have climbed in through the small first floor bathroom
window that was used to gain entry. But his DNA matched so it must have been
him!
|