Compared to fingerprints? Is there a way to defeat it?

99.999999999999999 %

---------------------------------------------------
W.W.S.D. what would Scooby Doo

if you are referring to the accuracy of DNA comparison testing, with complete strains of DNA it's a 100% accurate test. the only possible error is if the samples are mixed up.

in order to create a different but valid DNA sample, you would need to actually have different DNA from where they sampled. this can be achieved having flesh grafted on to your body. in order to prevent your own body from attacking and killing the grafted flesh, medications to suppress your immune system are required for the entire time that the flesh is incorporated with your own. however, in most comparison testing, blood is drawn and used for testing. one's blood cannot be completely replaced without resulting in death.

there are no current means of changing ones DNA signature on a macrocellular (many connected cells) level.


"the wisdom of the wise will perish, the intelligence of the intelligent will vanish."



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/12/2009 09:42AM by Gravis.

If OJ defeated it, anyone can. Or rather he didn't defeat it, just convinced his jury they should ignore it because when you make your hand into a fist when you put it into a glove it looks like it doesn't fit. So they must acquit.

The way to defeat DNA is to convince a jury that the samples were tainted during collection, which is what OJ's lawyers did.

There was an episode of one of those forensics shows (I'm pretty sure it was "Forensic Files") a while back about a man who evaded suspicion for many years by surgically implanting a tube in his arm, filling it with someone else's blood, and talking the phlebotomy technician into using that "vein" for the draw instead of a finger stick. He wasn't discovered for quite a long time.

Seems like it would be a lot less trouble to simply avoid doing things that motivate the police to take DNA samples.

My DNA is very accurate. Especially when I'm aiming it at some chick.

__________________________________
That's not a ladybug, that's a cannapiller.

pgens Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Seems like it would be a lot less trouble to
> simply avoid doing things that motivate the police
> to take DNA samples.

Agreed. Much less hassle that way.

--------------------------------------------------------------
13 4826 0948 82695 25847. Yes.

WashingTone-Locian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The way to defeat DNA is to convince a jury that
> the samples were tainted during collection, which
> is what OJ's lawyers did.


And there are several documented cases where lab workers have inadvertantly cross-contaminated samples.

Unless you are quite wealthy, and have access to zombification techniques to get Johnny Cochrane back from the beyond, it's tough to beat. Back in 95, DNA was relatively new, and they were able to convince the jury that it was fallable due to collection/laboratory techniques. Now, everyone in the country has seen CSI, and doesn't second guess anything that comes out of a lab

The rarity of the DNA profile produced is usually in the range of 1 in a few hundred quadrillion or even quintillion. So add 15 or 18 zeros to the number and then decide for yourself, if you think you like your chances that it is someone else.

Hmmm...

This post seems strangely prophetic now.

DNA Evidence Can Be Fabricated, Scientists Show

Scientists in Israel have demonstrated that it is possible to fabricate DNA evidence, undermining the credibility of what has been considered the gold standard of proof in criminal cases.


http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/18/science/18dna.html

Yeah, I saw that article today. It makes it sound like just anyone with a chemistry set could fake DNA results. But it would require a decent lab for most folks to come close. I was trying to figure out if the article/research was going to be used to debunk DNA evidence. I imagine there will be some future cases where they try to argue it.

Registered Voter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Yeah, I saw that article today. It makes it sound
> like just anyone with a chemistry set could fake
> DNA results. But it would require a decent lab for
> most folks to come close. I was trying to figure
> out if the article/research was going to be used
> to debunk DNA evidence. I imagine there will be
> some future cases where they try to argue it.

Wasn't there some discussion about passing a federal law overriding some state laws that bar retrying cases where new DNA evidence surfaced?

If this is arising now in response to that, it would appear the case is being made that we shouldn't let "dangerous criminals go free" based on new DNA evidence, since it can be fabricated.

trogdor! Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Hmmm...
>
> This post seems strangely prophetic now.
>
> DNA Evidence Can Be Fabricated, Scientists Show
>
> Scientists in Israel have demonstrated that it is
> possible to fabricate DNA evidence, undermining
> the credibility of what has been considered the
> gold standard of proof in criminal cases.
>
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/18/science/18dna.html


i actually read part of the paper (see abstract) and it says within the paper are instructions for how to tell real DNA apart from artificial DNA.

but seriously, if there is a large pool of blood, you cant contaminate ALL of it. i think this only works on the cellular level anyway, not a threat to court evidence.


"the wisdom of the wise will perish, the intelligence of the intelligent will vanish."

I suggest you start practicing ways to pickup soap without exposing your back side.

Lurker. Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I suggest you start practicing ways to pickup soap
> without exposing your back side.

are you implying that someone is trying to frame me? WHO IS IT?! TELL ME!


"the wisdom of the wise will perish, the intelligence of the intelligent will vanish."