DNA law change

**spudchucka** · 10th February 2009, 18:59

Originally Posted by Skyryder

Well the police got Doherty wrong and no doubt you were as cock sure of his guilt then as you are of Watson's now.

Skyryder

When Watson gets pardoned I'll take it all back.

**Patrick** · 10th February 2009, 19:02

Originally Posted by Ixion

... David Docherty was falsely accused, convicted and jailed on the basis of DNA evidence (I'm personally sure Scott Watson was, too, but that's not proven). DNA evidence is the easiest evidence of all to fake. Show me why such a database won't make more David Dochertys more likely?

I might be wrong here, but I thought he was convicted because the victim got a look at her attacker and she said it was him. He was her neighbour?

It was later DNA testing (not available at the time of the case) that proved his innocence.

Oh... WATSON is guilty....

**Skyryder** · 10th February 2009, 19:09

Originally Posted by spudchucka

When Watson gets pardoned I'll take it all back.

Why not use your own intelligence to figure out for yourself instead of others to do it for you.

There's heaps of stuff on the net on this. Most of it raises doubt and puts a convincing case that Watson 'did not commit' the double murders.

Who knows we may get to agree on something.

Skyryder

**spudchucka** · 10th February 2009, 19:59

Originally Posted by Skyryder

There's heaps of stuff on the net on this.

The internet said that man never landed on the moon too but the Mythbusters screwed that conspiracy theory over good and proper.

**Patrick** · 10th February 2009, 20:05

Originally Posted by Skyryder

Why not use your own intelligence to figure out for yourself instead of others to do it for you.

There's heaps of stuff on the net on this. Most of it raises doubt and puts a convincing case that Watson 'did not commit' the double murders.

Who knows we may get to agree on something.

Skyryder

I'm not convinced he is innocent... I may have mentioned this once or twice...? There is all sorts of crap on the net, so who knows what to believe?

Originally Posted by spudchucka

The internet said that man never landed on the moon too but the Mythbusters screwed that conspiracy theory over good and proper.

Or did they....??????

**Skyryder** · 10th February 2009, 20:10

Originally Posted by Mully

Actually, that's a point. Didn't they convict Watson on DNA evidence that was shown to be compromised?

I think you may be referring to the hairs on the tiger blanket.

From http://trudyandtom.tripod.com/defence.htm

The two hairs:

There was a strong possibility of inadvertent transfer of the hairs in the ESR laboratory in Auckland on 7th March 1998 when both ST05 (reference hairs from Olivia Hope's bedroom) and YA69 hairs (tiger blanket hairs from the accused's boat) were examined by the same scientist, on the same day, at the same examining laboratory table. There was an unexplained cut in bag ST05 and hairs from Olivia Hope could have inadvertently escaped from that bag. By 7 March 1998 the YA69 hairs had already been screened on two previous occasions without any examiner noticing the two crucial blond hairs. One being 250mm long and the other 150mm long;

The DNA evidence to show that these two hairs were Olivia Hope's was far from conclusive and was inconclusive and unconvincing. Hair 69/13 had shown one positive test in New Zealand which could not be replicated, the confirming test in Australia was said to be unreliable as there had been no contemporaneous test of a control sample which should have been undertaken, testing in the UK showed that the hair had a mixed DNA profile (i.e. from two or more sources). Hair 69/12 had produces no nuclear DNA results in New Zealand and the United Kingdom results only matched 12 out of the 13 positions. If unmatched on the 13th position the hair would be excluded and there was evidence of contamination in the UK testing;

There was a strong possibility, which could not be excluded by the crown hair expert of secondary hair transfer given that both Olivia Hope and the accused had been present at the same function on New Years Eve at Furneaux Lodge; Note: On the subject of secondary transfer, it should be noted that there were 16 animal hairs found on the tiger blanket and yet there has never been an animal onboard Blade since it's launch

Skyryder

**Skyryder** · 10th February 2009, 20:25

Originally Posted by spudchucka

The internet said that man never landed on the moon too but the Mythbusters screwed that conspiracy theory over good and proper.

Yes it did and I for none never believed it. We could all argue that on the basis we should not form any opionions on subjects or ideas that we can not confirm by our own presence or have not witnessed with our own eyes. So since neither of us were on the moon how do you know that a man 'did' land on the moon? In reality we do not.

We deduce truth by way of our reasoning. We look at the 'probable.' That which is most likely, given our narrow terms of reference on any particular subject due to our inexperiance or lack being present on any said event.

It's not where you get the information but its relevance to a particular point or question.

Skyryder

**Winston001** · 11th February 2009, 09:44

It's all about balance. The rights of the individual to privacy and protection from the powers of the State, measured against the community interest in reducing crime and apprehending offenders.

I can't see any real objection to having a national database of every persons DNA. It will help when bodies are found - the Australians cannot identify some of the people in the bush fires - and gives us another way of identifying criminals.

New York explains the crime drop there in because of the DNA database they have. Plus no-excuse law enforcement. In Invercargill we recently had a murderer convicted - guilty plea, on DNA after an unsolved murder in 1988. Technology moves forward.

If you are worried your sample will be mismatched or mislabelled, you have plenty of spare DNA on your body for comparison tests. So you won't face being charged with Scott Watsons offences.

**dipshit** · 11th February 2009, 09:49

So? Doesn't everybody who gets arrested get their fingerprints taken?

DNA is the new and better fingerprint.

You will probably be happy for the technology next time your house is burgled and they find a drop of blood or something from the burglar when he was trying to break in.

**MSTRS:Me** · 11th February 2009, 09:59

Originally Posted by dipshit

So? Doesn't everybody who gets arrested get their fingerprints taken?

DNA is the new and better fingerprint.

You will probably be happy for the technology next time your house is burgled and they find a drop of blood or something from the burglar when he was trying to break in.

Mostly right, but...
http://multiples.about.com/cs/funfac...ingerprint.htm

**dipshit** · 11th February 2009, 10:06

Originally Posted by MSTRS

Mostly right, but...
http://multiples.about.com/cs/funfac...ingerprint.htm

... your point..???

**MSTRS:Me** · 11th February 2009, 10:33

Originally Posted by dipshit

... your point..???

My point is that fingerprints are unique. But DNA is the same for identical twins. So it is not necessarily a 'better' form of identifying people.

**Ixion** · 11th February 2009, 10:41

Rather more so, in fact. Fingerprints are unique (or at any rate no one's found a duplicate in over 100 years).

But DNA ID , as used for law enforcement purposes, is far from unique. The degree of exactitude does not extend down to a specific unique person. The results will only show a probability of match " The DNA from this person is a million times more likely to be from the same person who left the crime artefact as a random person" . In other words, there are , statistically, four other people in the country who it could equally likely be from. And the odds go way up if there are related people.

But it is never put that way tot the jury . it is always "Scientific DNA evidence proves that the DNA came form the defendant". It "proves" no such thing (proves nothing in fact) but that's how it's always presented. And juries, being largely composed of stupid people swallow it. "It's scientific, izzn it? Must be true".

**spudchucka** · 11th February 2009, 11:58

Originally Posted by dipshit

So? Doesn't everybody who gets arrested get their fingerprints taken?

DNA is the new and better fingerprint.

You will probably be happy for the technology next time your house is burgled and they find a drop of blood or something from the burglar when he was trying to break in.

These days it doesn't even have to be a drop of blood, potentially anything that the offender has been in contact with could provide a DNA sample.