DNA law change

[Max Preload]

Kinda ignores the cleaning with bleach (which destroys blood stains apparently) the hard to find/see hairs that were "missed" in the "cleanup" and a whole raft of other things.... Like all 12 members of a jury being convinced...

Weren't all twelve of Arthur Allan Thomas' trial jury all convinced too? Twice?

My personal serious misgivings about this case aside, I clean my boat with bleach inside and out every year and it lives on a trailer. Bleach kills algae.

[Skyryder]

Ah... so the sloop did it...

Kinda ignores the cleaning with bleach (which destroys blood stains apparently) the hard to find/see hairs that were "missed" in the "cleanup"

Nope not missed in the clean up but missed in the lab. It is suggested in Trial by Trickery that the hairs found in the lab on the second 'look' could have been the ones that the police lifted from Olivia's bedroom.

Try reading the book then you will have some knowledge of what you agree or disagree with, or failing that the bits about the hairs found on the tiger blanket.

Skyryder

[jahrasti]

Indeed? It is widely acknowledged (except for the official line pof course) that this does not happen. There is a snowball's chance in hell of getting your DNA records off the database once they are on. (Is the reference to the sample being deleted merely confused or is there a subtle 'gotcha' there. The deletion of the sample is irrelevant what must be deleted is both the sample and the computer stored profile generated from it)

How about you give a list of some of the offences that CAN be imprisonable , though they never are?

You are wrong and I would love for you to show me where there are examples of this? Voluntary DNA swaps are taken the time. They read a 3 page form and sign down the bottom of it. And before you crap on about them being pissed and not remembering they get a copy. Because it is voluntary they withdraw their consent at any time.(any time!) The sample can no longer be used and the sample is removed from the database.

DNA is also not just for crime. It can also be used for ID. If a body is unable to be ID then if they are on the database then it can be ID quicky. Dental can be slow and in accurate.

Remember this is for voluntary samples, as has been said sometimes some people don't have a choice to give DNA.

DNA is kept by ESR who is NOT a division of Police. They don't give the results that Police want they give facts. If they start fudging shit then no credibility in anything (EBA blood etc). It is also very expensive to actually get a sample tested as it is not done for every crime as you see in the movies, we actually have to justify the expence.

That enough from me, I had better get to work and stitch people up. Or at least eat donuts and drink copious amount of coffee.

[Patrick]

Weren't all twelve of Arthur Allan Thomas' trial jury all convinced too? Twice?

My personal serious misgivings about this case aside, I clean my boat with bleach inside and out every year and it lives on a trailer. Bleach kills algae.

So was a lawyer who knew of it... "Police planted the bullet, yep, THOMAS guilty, yep" was his call. I read YALLOPs book too, which turned me around. Then heard this. As you were, I said.....

So.... how many tourists you topped off then?

Nope not missed in the clean up but missed in the lab. It is suggested in Trial by Trickery that the hairs found in the lab on the second 'look' could have been the ones that the police lifted from Olivia's bedroom.

Try reading the book then you will have some knowledge of what you agree or disagree with, or failing that the bits about the hairs found on the tiger blanket.

Skyryder

Nah... better being uninformed and ill advised... more fun that way..... If you are right and WATSON is innocent, I will shout the beer. (and donuts).

That enough from me, I had better get to work and stitch people up. Or at least eat donuts and drink copious amount of coffee.

So.... you work for the ESR or QID?

[Winston001]

Well, it certainly helps them cover up their incompetence in ignoring expert eye-witness statements nicely!

Presumably you are referring to the mystery two masted ketch which has never been found in the Scott Watson case.

Odd as it seems to most of us, eye-witness reports are notoriously unreliable. This has been researched and studied so don't just take my word for it.

Honest decent people can have wildly varying memories of exactly the same event.

The mystery ketch appears in none of the photos taken of the bay - and there were a lot of photos. The water taxi guy honestly believes what he says. However in the beginning he drew a sketch of a two-masted yacht and wrote "ketch?" beside it. So he wasn't at all certain then.

Over the next two days he was pressured by reporters and his story grew more detail. He became sure it was a ketch and having made that decision, his memory will now insist for the rest of his life that is what he saw. He can't back down.

[Skyryder]

Nah... better being uninformed and ill advised... more fun that way..... If you are right and WATSON is innocent, I will shout the beer. (and donuts).

Do I detect a 'smidgon' of doubt.

There's been some talk of a movie on this. Don't know what's happened but once this is made and out into the public areana you just watch the change in public opinion on this.


Skyryder

[Skyryder]

Presumably you are referring to the mystery two masted ketch which has never been found in the Scott Watson case.

Odd as it seems to most of us, eye-witness reports are notoriously unreliable. This has been researched and studied so don't just take my word for it.

Honest decent people can have wildly varying memories of exactly the same event.

The mystery ketch appears in none of the photos taken of the bay - and there were a lot of photos. The water taxi guy honestly believes what he says. However in the beginning he drew a sketch of a two-masted yacht and wrote "ketch?" beside it. So he wasn't at all certain then.

Over the next two days he was pressured by reporters and his story grew more detail. He became sure it was a ketch and having made that decision, his memory will now insist for the rest of his life that is what he saw. He can't back down.

It’s not just Wallaces evidence of a mystry boat but other witnesses as well

Morresey is adamant that the mystery boat had heaps of rope on board and Dyer’s statement about reaching up as the Niaad came along side. Both these statements are in contrast to Watson’s sloop.

Other witness saw a Ketch and reported this to the Police yet. The type of misinformation that was given to the jury.

Here’s and example ‘Despite the wide media coverage that the Police were looking for a ketch, no such ketch was found or no such sighting was given to the police. Pope never seriously looked for a ketch and to claim that no information was given to the police of a ketch was untrue.

It's getting off topic so will not elaborate.

Skyryder

[Patrick]

Do I detect a 'smidgon' of doubt.

There's been some talk of a movie on this. Don't know what's happened but once this is made and out into the public areana you just watch the change in public opinion on this.


Skyryder

Ohhhh cool... will it be a cartoon?

... The type of misinformation that was given to the jury.

Here’s and example ‘Despite the wide media coverage that the Police were looking for a ketch, no such ketch was found or no such sighting was given to the police. Pope never seriously looked for a ketch and to claim that no information was given to the police of a ketch was untrue.

It's getting off topic so will not elaborate.

Skyryder

A type of misinformation Morressy came up with.

I recall a national notice "seeking all ketches in your town...." and a description of what they were looking for. Does it exist?

But you're right....

It is KB though, so quite normal.......

[A_Mans_Ruin]

Having said that, I still don't believe they should be able to take your DNA in the new manner. Either take everyones DNA, and start taking it from birth, or use it when it's required to tip the balance. If it's good enough to start matching up previous crimes, then why not sample everyone and use it to rip the heart out of the criminal element in this country? Probably because it's not a magic tool like CSI makes out...

DNA is takin at birth, The Newborn Metabolic screening tests done at 48 hours old. After these cards have been tested they are put into indefinate storage. Courts can order these tests to be used for anything, Paternity test, DNA testing etc etc. If you dont request the cards back after your infant has had the test then Big Brother will keep them. This isnt a new scheme that has just started either....

[Winston001]

DNA is takin at birth, The Newborn Metabolic screening tests done at 48 hours old. After these cards have been tested they are put into indefinate storage. Courts can order these tests to be used for anything, Paternity test, DNA testing etc etc. If you dont request the cards back after your infant has had the test then Big Brother will keep them. This isnt a new scheme that has just started either....

Hmmm.....you are right about the tests at birth but the DNA isn't read - and that is the really valuable information. But I don't think those blood samples can be used for DNA today.

DNA isn't a tough stable molecule. It degrades unless the cell containing it is somehow preserved and protected, or the cell is replicated in a culture. For example, the Jurassic Park idea that dinosaur DNA could be extracted from blood sucked up by mosquitoes stuck in amber is science fiction. Great idea but no-one has found DNA that way - yet.

The hospital samples aren't grown on a culture and preserved - so far as I know, and therefore older samples will be of limited use.

Incidentally, never heard of these tests being used later for any evidential proof so am interested in why you say that happens? Always something new to learn.

[A_Mans_Ruin]

There was a case just recently that went to court, a father was trying to prove that he indeed was. The mother would not consent to DNA testing of the child, so it was ruled by the courts to use the NMST for this.
Police can access these as well. Im sure there are limits and regulations for storage of the cards but they can be used for DNA purposes.

[want-a-harley]

But I don't think those blood samples can be used for DNA today.

DNA isn't a tough stable molecule. It degrades unless the cell containing it is somehow preserved and protected, or the cell is replicated in a culture.

Is the blood stored frozen (-20C) if so it should be fine for profiling purposes.

DNA does degrade but DNA testing forensic purposes uses small regions of the DNA so can be used (with varying degrees of success) on degraded samples. Hence success in cold case review of old cases prior to current methods.

[popelli]

the trouble with DNA databases is that they will be used for far more than just solving crime they will extend dna data into health care and predicting peoples future misfortune

once everybody is on the DNA data base this data will be sold to insurance companies (to recover admin costs) who will then use this data to see who is most likely to get cancer and other diseases and load insurance premiums accordingly

eventually this leads to an insurance underclass of uninsurable people whom the health service will not want either as it costs them money

ultimately employers will find that these people are sick from work more often and suppling dna profile will become part of job selection as it is in their interests not to employ "defective" people

[want-a-harley]

the trouble with DNA databases is that they will be used for far more than just solving crime they will extend dna data into health care and predicting peoples future misfortune

once everybody is on the DNA data base this data will be sold to insurance companies (to recover admin costs) who will then use this data to see who is most likely to get cancer and other diseases and load insurance premiums accordingly

eventually this leads to an insurance underclass of uninsurable people whom the health service will not want either as it costs them money

ultimately employers will find that these people are sick from work more often and suppling dna profile will become part of job selection as it is in their interests not to employ "defective" people

The data obtained for forensic profiling purposes tells nothing of the issues stated here.

If insurance companies/employers want genetic information they could (in a distant bleak future) just refuse insurance without a blood sample.

[Winston001]

the trouble with DNA databases is that they will be used for far more than just solving crime they will extend dna data into health care and predicting peoples future misfortune

once everybody is on the DNA data base this data will be sold to insurance companies (to recover admin costs) who will then use this data to see who is most likely to get cancer and other diseases and load insurance premiums accordingly

eventually this leads to an insurance underclass of uninsurable people whom the health service will not want either as it costs them money

ultimately employers will find that these people are sick from work more often and suppling dna profile will become part of job selection as it is in their interests not to employ "defective" people

You are referring to gene sequencing which is a jump beyond simple DNA reading. However your points are well made and indeed this is what the future holds.

Having said that, there was a lot of fear about the Wanganui police computer when it first started in the early 1970s. Information passed to other government agencies, the CIA, debt collectors etc. Didn't come to anything and the info is harder to get today than ever.

As an example, employers can't even ask for your criminal record anymore. So I think our genetic sequences are safe for a few decades.