7 ms·
The problem with using DNA to identify someone in crime is that we leave DNA everywhere. See this case for example: https://www.wired.com/story/dna-transfer-fra
by laken 8y ago
The problem with using DNA to identify someone in crime is that we leave DNA everywhere. See this case for example: https://www.wired.com/story/dna-transfer-framed-murder/ https://www.wired.com/story/dna-transfer-framed-murder/
- tbyehl 8y agoCame here to mention that same article. The more important point, to my view, is that the DNA we shed doesn't necessarily stay put. DNA transference, law enforcement access to large DNA databases, familial matching, and advances in extracting DNA from trace samples make for a scary combination. Lukis Anderson was damned lucky that the person who inadvertently transferred his DNA to a crime scene could be identified.
- mrhappyunhappy 8y agoReading that article and the studies it cites makes me lose all faith in DNA evidence. It seems anyone can be carrying anyone else’s DNA at any given time. What’s the point of considering it as evidence?
- kenjackson 8y agoIt's evidence. I can point you to tons of cases of eye witnesses providing faulty testimony (in good faith, not to mention those who lie). Is there an oracle that will tell you who committed the crime? No. But it seems odd to be OK with some forms of evidence that are even more unreliable than this, if your issue is about reliability.