CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM

[Softus]

Softus Posted the sperm thing to moz instead of you

Ah - I see - I hadn't spotted this until now. My answer:

As far as I know, and remember I'm not an expert, a tissue sample taken from sperm yields no more, or less, DNA information than a sample of from any other tissue.

I suspect that you're thinking of the genetic material that is present in DNA (although this isn't as abundant as you might think), and I guess that you're alluding to the idea that sperm contains more genetic material than a sample from, say, a fingernail. AFAIK, the profiling of crime samples examines mosetly, or even exclusively, non-genetic strands, but this is one that I'll have to look up though, to check my facts.

 

[kendor]

Softus Posted the sperm thing to moz instead of you

Ah - I see - I hadn't spotted this until now. My answer:

As far as I know, and remember I'm not an expert, a tissue sample taken from sperm yields no more, or less, DNA information than a sample of from any other tissue.

I suspect that you're thinking of the genetic material that is present in DNA (although this isn't as abundant as you might think), and I guess that you're alluding to the idea that sperm contains more genetic material than a sample from, say, a fingernail. AFAIK, the profiling of crime samples examines mosetly, or even exclusively, non-genetic strands, but this is one that I'll have to look up though, to check my facts.

There is a report out there in the ether that suggests that DNA profiling is not acceptable as evidence as it is not 100% positive in it's results and although the odds seem to run in the billions against the result being from two or more people there is still that possibility and because when research was done to see if it could be a viable and legal accepted form of evidence in court, that this research didn't cover all the legalities that have come to light in more recent times what with technologal advances, that it now comes into disrepute as absolute evidence.
I suppose it just takes someone to fight this in court in order for the acceptance of this method of evidence to be abandoned?

 

[Softus]

There is a report out there in the ether that suggests that DNA profiling is not acceptable as evidence...

Sorry kendor, but this rumour you've heard is not very accurate.

Firstly, my point about sperm was not about reliability, but about whether a DNA sample from sperm was more useful than a sample from other body tissue. I believe that it is not.

Secondly, I've posted earlier on this topic, regarding the reliability of DNA evidence - the fact is that it is admissable evidence, but only in conjunction with non-DNA evidence.

Another fact is that it is not foreseeable that DNA evidence will ever provide the 100% proof that you allude to. This is because the science involved in profiling involves matching DNA strands from samples, which yields only a statistical probability of that profile occurring in another, random selected, member of the general population.

It is for the prosecution to present, and the bench (and, where relevant, jury) to consider, other evidence that limits the set of suspects to a sufficiently small number such that all of the evidence together is proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the person charged is guilty.

There are cases, of course, where the DNA evidence makes it supremely unlikely that the initial suspect was the perpitrator.

 

[Moz]

Markie

"Softus Posted the sperm thing to moz instead of you"


WHO EVER WANTS TO POST THEIR MAN MUCK TO ME ...STOP>>>>I DONT WANT IT ...*shudder !*
send it to joey=webmong ...bet he will find it delicious ...lol

 

[markie]

 

[Slogger]

 

[kendor]

There is a report out there in the ether that suggests that DNA profiling is not acceptable as evidence...

Sorry kendor, but this rumour you've heard is not very accurate.

Firstly, my point about sperm was not about reliability, but about whether a DNA sample from sperm was more useful than a sample from other body tissue. I believe that it is not.

Secondly, I've posted earlier on this topic, regarding the reliability of DNA evidence - the fact is that it is admissable evidence, but only in conjunction with non-DNA evidence.

Another fact is that it is not foreseeable that DNA evidence will ever provide the 100% proof that you allude to. This is because the science involved in profiling involves matching DNA strands from samples, which yields only a statistical probability of that profile occurring in another, random selected, member of the general population.

It is for the prosecution to present, and the bench (and, where relevant, jury) to consider, other evidence that limits the set of suspects to a sufficiently small number such that all of the evidence together is proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the person charged is guilty.

There are cases, of course, where the DNA evidence makes it supremely unlikely that the initial suspect was the perpitrator.

I was quoting an actual report not a rumour that was suggesting that a legal bid by defence could in theory quash the ruling of admissable evidence where DNA profiling was involved and as you go on to say I believe that judges and council have been briefed on this and now have to back it up with other evidence to bolster it. If you see my post again i was actually not suggesting 100% proof rather the contrary and it's this uncertainty that brought up the concerns in the report. This has been brought up before on this forum and somewhere there is a link to this report but it will take searching for it to find it.