National DNA Bank?

[anotheoldgit]

http://www.dailymail....-MI6-involvement.html

Does this case make a good argument in support of a National DNA Bank?

[Zeuhl]

DNA is not 100% reliable just as evidence of fingerprints and other forensics can be manipulated and has been used to produce miscarriages of justice.

If DNA is used to identify people then its placement can be used to mislead.

The smaller the samples the greater the risk of contamination either at the scene or in the labs.

A national DNA database assumes Government is capable of looking after personal data which it repeatedly demonstrates it isn't.

It would enable data to be used for more sinister purposes in the future.

[d9f1c7]

No

[ummmm]

Absolutely not for the reasons that Zeuhl pointed out.

[Baldric]

NO,
big brother has enough info already.

[Brenden]

The day will surely come when our data is taken at birth along with any other information needed.

[jake-the-peg]

And what do you think would happen when the DNA was traced to a member of the security services or foreign "diplomatic" services?

Come on - let's not kid ourselves that MI5 and MI6 are stumbling around wondering what happened here.

They may or may not know but I'm sure they've got a pretty good idea

[EvianBaby]

If they had anything to do with it, why leave his body to be discovered. Why not just make him 'vanish'.

[d9f1c7]

DNA proves nothing anyway.

[anotheoldgit]

Zeuhl

/// DNA is not 100% reliable just as evidence of fingerprints and other forensics can be manipulated and has been used to produce miscarriages of justice. ///

Still not quite got the hang of creating an understandable sentence yet, I see?

Regarding your comments, perhaps the police should sack most of their forensic personnel? and in this case they should also throw away the DNA swabs they have already taken.

Wouldn't want them capturing any alleged killers. now would we?

[anotheoldgit]

d9f1c7

/// DNA proves nothing anyway. ///

Try telling Jeremy Kyle that. :0)

[jake-the-peg]

Wel evian we can only speculate but if you put a body in a bag it rather sounds like that's the intention.

Perhaps they were disturbed or there was a change of plan.

DNA can prove things but it's entirely dependant on the context.

DNA in rape cases can obviously be pretty strong evidence depending on how it's gathered.

But if it's from a hair found without any context it can be pretty meaningless.

I have deep concerns about the amount of faith people seem to have about it as some sort of magic bullet evidence and I do think that unless judges are very careful in instructing juries they can give undue weight to it

[Zeuhl]

Still not quite got the hang of creating an understandable sentence yet, I see?

And what was that Brenda?

Anyone who can dish it out but can't take it should perhaps back off?

[Brenden]

There is a difference in bantering on here and being insulting Zeuhl and you fall into the latter.

[d9f1c7]

we have to get away from this idea that the presence of DNA is a stone wall indicator of guilt. It is merely another peice of evidence that can support or not a case. It is a useful indicator, that's all. I am totally opposed to the idea of a national DNA database because, as we know it will be misused by those in power. I don't think anyone should have that kind of power, especially governments. I'm now waiting for the wisdom of the "Nothing to hide nothing to fear brigade before I officially PMSL"

[rowanwitch]

A database from birth would be useless for tracing criminals as the DNA taken at that time would be linked to a set of identity data ie name, date of birth one or both parents...

The person who wants to be involved in crime simply creates a new identity..

So you get a match to Jo Smith born 13th May 1991 but Jo Smith is now Darren Brookes and is not in contact with his birth parents...

[Zeuhl]

Wouldn't want them capturing any alleged killers. now would we?

What Old Git?

Like Barry George? and others.

Convicted largely on forensic testimony that is later shown to be ridiculous.

[pdq1]

I get a bit worried when they say the conviction is pretty foolproof because a match of his DNA is 1 in a million. However there are 60 million in the UK which obviously means the match could apply to 59 others.