Man accused and charged with rape on the DNA evidence of one hair despite the fact he and the rapist were different colours !
I never figured you for a Mail reader Steve…shame on you! 
So what are we saying Steve?
Are we saying the Ipswich Prostitute murderer shouldn’t be in court because all the evidence that pins him down is DNA based?:blink:
Nothing is ever 100% fail safe… Just look at the Space Shuttle:crying:
I’m not, I got it from another forum 
Chunks, there is a DNA database with a million or so peoples DNA in it and we were assured when it was created that DNA on its own will not be used to charge/convict somebody.
This chap was arrested, charged and kept on remand because of one hair that the girl had under her ring. Nobody could explain how it got there but the chap was a hospital porter for a while and the girl had been to hospital. See how easy it is for DNA to get transferred ? The girl had stated that the rapist was black and tall but the man arrested and charged was white and short, but they didn’t let that get in the way of a sure fire conviction . . . they had DNA evidence that linked the two poeple together.
The Ipswich case is different because there is more than one set of DNA which matched the accused, there’s also CCTV evidence and his own admission that he had been with at least some of the girls on the nights they were killed, the DNA supports the other evidence and doesn’t form all the evidence on it’s own.
It’s very easy to plant DNA evidence like hair so it’s not a reliable indicator to use.
A daily Mail reader, how dare you come on here and admit to that, a wannabe posh git.
Daily Mail posh? You are joking, of course?:blink:
Well the people i know who read it think they are posh, i can`t see anything wrong in the Sport newspaper.
I can - the fact that you chose to refer to it as a newspaper!!!:w00t:
Oi, I’m not a Daily Mail reader ! :w00t: I got the link from another forum 
Here we go.Ok, lets get one things straight first - has this man been convicted of this crime ?Have the Police done thier job and presented evidence that they had to the CPS (who ultimately decide whether something goes to court or not) who then have taken this to court ?“Chunks, there is a DNA database with a million or so peoples DNA in it and we were assured when it was created that DNA on its own will not be used to charge/convict somebody.”
I know that when this database was created that technology and the process of examining / retrieving DNA was very very different.
As for assurances and what was said, you’ll have to speak to J-A about that, she’s the resident expert on this.
I’m sure that those assurances were only made recently after a trial in NI - I’m probably wrong though and tif I’m not that may have something to do with why the CPS offered no evidence.
“This chap was arrested, charged and kept on remand because of one hair that the girl had under her ring.”
What about if someone is a suspect in a serious arrestable offence and they get bailed by the Police / Courts and then go on to commit further attacks such as this. I’m quite sure that the Daily Mail and you would be saying the opposite and asking why he was on bail.
“Nobody could explain how it got there but the chap was a hospital porter for a while and the girl had been to hospital. See how easy it is for DNA to get transferred ?”
I’m not disputing how easy DNA transfer is but the Police and the CPS have done their job (gathered what evidence they have and given it to court - it is not down to them to decide someone’s guilt or not.
“The girl had stated that the rapist was black and tall but the man arrested and charged was white and short, but they didn’t let that get in the way of a sure fire conviction . . . they had DNA evidence that linked the two poeple together.”
Very dramatic crap your talking there mate !
What conviction, no one has been convicted of anything.
Having dealt with victims and witnesses who have experianced traumatic events over the last 16 odd years I can tell you that often they have not got a clue what has happened and the descriptions that they give can differ greatly from who has actually attacked them. Police have to act on all the evidence they seize from a victim / crime scene.
Again, what would be said if this evidence was seized / processed and the Police decided to not bother as the victims description was out - the suspected male then goes onto commit further serious assaults but could have been stopped if the Police had done their job ? You’d be frothing at the mouth - as I would be !!
“The Ipswich case is different because there is more than one set of DNA which matched the accused, there’s also CCTV evidence and his own admission that he had been with at least some of the girls on the nights they were killed, the DNA supports the other evidence and doesn’t form all the evidence on it’s own.”
True, this case does not involve DNA on it’s own but the rest of the evidence is circumstantial (as the defence are trying to claim). DNA appears to be a major part of the evidence.
“It’s very easy to plant DNA evidence like hair so it’s not a reliable indicator to use.”
The old … lets do something to prevent the Old Bill from fitting him up - think you’ve been watching too much of The Sweeney !
I’m not apportioning blame here, none of us know the deep detail of the case but it’s an example of the way DNA data is used. There was a "chance of a " missing before the conviction, he fortunately wasn’t convicted which was clear in the report but to have a man charged and held on the evidence of a single hair is dubious, especially when he has a job working with the public.I went bowling last night, there will be some of my DNA in the shoes I wore, maybe skin, maybe hair, blood even if I has a cut or blister, suppose somebody else wears those today and then commits a crime of some description and leaves one of my hairs at the scene. The way DNA evidence is used, I will be considered a suspect even though I may possibly never have been anywhere near the crime location. That’s not right.I do wonder also why some of the police on here try to criticise and have a go at the person posting rather than the topic. I’d much rather hear your views on how DNA evidence is collected and used -that’s educational but simply telling me I’ve been watching to much sweeney de-values what you’ve just said and what you say in the future.Nobody has suggested that there was any attempt at “fitting him up” . . . . you’re simply trying to put words into the topic that never existed in the original, just like the Sun might do 
Ok, where to start? Yes, as Trojan said I am the resident expert and not ‘expert’ as in I’ve read things and think I know what I am talking about - I really am an expert as defined by the courts in England and Wales. First things, first. A matching DNA profile on it’s own is not enough for a conviction to proceed, there has to be other evidence to back it up. A full evaluation of a matching profile doesn’t just include a statistic (the one in a billion you commonly hear quoted - especially in the Sally Anne Bowman murder trial over the last few weeks :Whistling: ), but also whether or not it is possible to say what biological material the profile was obtained from and how that material could have been transferred. Numerous experiments have been carried out regarding transfer of bodyfluids and situations similar to that described in the bowling example (secondary or even tertiary transfer). If a particular scenario is proposed and there is no data to support an evaluation experiments can be carried out to simulate it. I could give you full details of how scientists go about dealing with these issues and how samples are taken, but it would take some time and no-one would keep reading (except the dodgy people looking for tips on how to get away with criminal activities). If anyone is really interested PM me and I may explain further - or see me in person at a meet, where you are more likely to get a full response. Oh and on the subject of the National DNA Database - it is a very useful tool and the laws surrounding it are very strict about what it can be used for and when. When doing identifications following the Asian tsunami I was not allowed to search profiles from the deceased to try to identify them for the coroner, as they had been victims of a natural disaster and not a crime. Thankfully that has now been changed and in a similar situation it would be possible to do that now, but it took an Act of Parliament for it to be changed. The NDNAD can provide a name to the police who they can then look into, as was the case with Mark Dixie, but on it’s own it’s not enough - a full police investigation still has to be carried out. The thing with the verdict in Northern Ireland had nothing to do with the National DNA Database, it was a different issue relating to a specialist form of DNA profiling. An issue that wasn’t really an issue and when the powers that be realised it, everything calmed down again! One further thing I’d like to say is that DNA profiling exonerates far more people that it implicates, but that doesn’t make good news headlines :pinch:
The key issue here is that public and police have to gain a full understanding of the limitations and benefits that DNA evidence brings to criminal investigations. The NI case was flawed as they relied in lay-man’s terms on a poor quality match. Even high quality matches are open to interpretation and there’s also the issue of contamination.
The protocols surrounding the treatment of evidence have to be closely followed if you’re to be sure that no contamination has take place. In the past there have been occasions where items on which DNA has apparently been found have been stored or even photographed in the same location. Clearly, that should not happen.
I dont have a great deal of sympathy for this ‘Daily Mail’ scare story, but to apparently potentially ignore other key elements of evidence in preference for DNA evidence is not really on. The key word being apparently… you have to keep in mind that not all elements of an investigation are likely to be disclosed.
I also dont personally subscribe to the concept of every child, adult etc being DNA profiled, it wouldn’t be a magic bullet against crime. Also in a society that assumes innocence rather than guilt, it would represent a massive attack on personal liberty.
There was a massive Panorama investigation recently into fingerprint evidence…
DNA IS fallible despite what “they” say…
Oh and remember when they told us that DVDs would replace that rubbish analogue tape stuff and we’d never have “drop out” again.
Don’t believe the hype!
2c worth:
DNA profiling only looks at a very small section of DNA, and there have been cases of false positives until a more comprehensive comparison has been done. Identical twins have identical DNA. However identical twins have different finger prints.
Unlike CSI, it doesn’t take a couple of minutes.
Nothing is foolproof.
As others have stated you cannot be convicted on DNA evidence alone, there has to be other evidence.
Question, would you object to having a profiled sample of DNA on a Database?
Personally I am not sure, but I think that the benefits would be good. In case of death you could be easily identified, it would help increase the conviction of criminals. It could be the basis of a national organ donor system. Automatic matching of potential transplant patients (time is vitally essential in this cases). As I have no intention of ever committing a serious criminal offence, I have convinced myself that I would. Would you?
I would! I’m already in the staff elimination database, which we have to check all ‘unknown’ profiles against (unknown as in not matching any reference or crimestain). I have even advocated to a few people whom I know in the military that they take a DNA sample, securely package it and then stick it in the back of their freezer at home (obviously letting someone close to them know that the sample is there) -just in case the worst happens. It is a very unfortunate situation when you are trying to identify parts of people and the only thing you have to try to get a reference profile from is a pair of socks and trainers (and yes, that has happened).
A national register couldn’t be used as a means of tracing organ donors as the DNA looked at is ‘junk’ DNA - you would have to have a whole load of other tests done and as far as I’m aware you cannot run tissue typing tests from the mouth swabs we use as reference samples. It’s like people worry about what is done with the data that is already stored - a profile is just a series of numbers that represent the relative sizes of chunks of DNA - they don’t mean anything in the real world, even the sex test is just an indicator, it’s not conclusive.
Re the first point, we currently use a DNA profiling system that looks at 10 areas of DNA, that are known to vary widely between individuals, along with a sex indicator. The system we used before (pre 1998) looked at 6 areas and before that 4 areas. There are various systems that look at different areas of DNA, with greater or fewer numbers of areas but it’s not a simple case of more is better. The more areas you look at the more likely it is you will start getting partial profiles, which reduce the strength of a match. Luckily there are an international set of agreed DNA areas that overlap between the various systems.
I don’t really want to get into the applications of statistics and probability theory to DNA profiling, but basically the reason that in this country we do not say a match is conclusive proof of the DNA coming from someone (as they would in the US) is that we know there are likely to be extremely rare cases where matches occur purely by chance alone (and that’s not even considering close relatives).
Anyway it’s a Saturday night, it’s late and I’m not getting overtime for this :w00t: I will try not to say anymore on this subject, but as you can probably tell… it’s something I take very seriously and will happily explain (as far as I am allowed) if it means that potential jury members have even a slightly better understanding of what DNA evidence means and it’s limitations.
Right, I really am shutting up now. Except to say… Tobi - who are “they”? :unsure:
Thanks for giving us your experts eye view JA:)
I’m all for a DNA database. It’s got to be the way forward:cool: