I have always been skeptical of DNA evidence being the holy grail in criminal cases. Now we find that DNA evidence can be faked.
Categories
- Business Continuity (12)
- Canada (95)
- Communication (47)
- Company Research (49)
- Competitive Intelligence (88)
- Counterfeit Goods (2)
- Courts (56)
- Craigslist (8)
- Detecting Decption (9)
- Dirty Tricks (23)
- Due Diligence (23)
- Economics (7)
- Encryption (17)
- Espionage (30)
- Ethics (5)
- Fitness and Lifestyle Management (28)
- Forensic Science (5)
- Forensics (6)
- Forgery (4)
- Fraud (36)
- Google-Free Wednesday (18)
- GTD (2)
- Handwriting (22)
- How to Become a Professional Private Investigator (45)
- Identity Fraud (32)
- Identity Theft (34)
- Industrial Espionage (34)
- Intellectual Property Rights (19)
- Intelligence Services (28)
- Legislation (21)
- Mathematics (3)
- Methods (117)
- News (54)
- News Media (22)
- Notebooks (14)
- Odds & Sods (12)
- Power User Tips (47)
- Privacy (70)
- Private Investigator (196)
- Report Writing (38)
- Reputation Management (13)
- Risk Management (12)
- Search Engines (155)
- Search Leakage (12)
- Search Strategies (115)
- Security (94)
- Shorthand (1)
- Social Sites (81)
- Sources (100)
- Statistics (8)
- Surveillance (49)
- Survival (6)
- Telephone Resources (5)
- Terrorism (16)
- The Investigator's Computer (57)
- Training & Education (13)
- Twitter (27)
- U.S.A. (11)
- Uncategorized (24)
- United Kingdom (8)
- Web Worker (18)
- Workplace Violence (1)
But that is not the whole story. There is a test to see whether DNA is faked. Faked DNA, which in fact is amplified DNA, is not methylated, meaning it lacks certain molecules that are attached to the DNA at specific points, usually to inactivate genes. This can be tested easily.
The only consequence is that DNA labs over the world now have to include this extra test.
The test is new, the ability to fake the DNA is not. That raises the question of whether past DNA evidence was faked.
Just because somebody says he is the first to “discover” a method of faking DNA doesn’t mean he actually was the first to discover it. That is the issue we now face with DNA evidence.
We also must now question the reliability of the test for fake DNA. If the test proves reliable, then should we be applying it to past cases? Will this create a stampede of appeals?
In most countries a conviction on solely DNA evidence is not possible so my guess is that re-examining DNA is only needed in just a few cases where there is only little (but just sufficient) supporting evidence.