The DNA evidence Absolute or Absolutely Not.

The advances in DNA analysis have been through an enormous extent that even though it is not accepted an evidence in courts back then, now, it has been a major component in trial court litigation. However, despite of the power that our DNA can bring to the resolution of trial court cases, likely for rape cases, kidnapping and abduction, to cite a few, there are few obstacles that several camps raised to lead one to become doubtful on DNA.

To understand why that may be a problem, it is useful to consider that each of us have about 1014 cells in our body, each with a full DNA profile packed inside them. We lose a number of these cells every minute of every day and (night-thats what keeps a family of bed bugs in food). (Jamieson, Allan, 2007)Simply put, it is easy to lose our DNA wherever we could possibly be. An example could be a person may be present in a certain place where he may have rubbed his hands or elbows, this particular action could lose that mans DNA and leave it there. To make matters worse, a crime scene occurred in the same scenario after the aforementioned man left his DNA there. Could this be a problem Indeed this could pose as a problem. How  Many, if not all, of these old, or cold cases occurred before DNA forced rethink of the possibilities for contamination of evidence. Exhibits were collected with little regard for who was handling them or the possibilities of cross contamination from suspects to items via the investigating officer.( Jamieson, Allan, 2007)

In this case, there is really no way of stating with absoluteness that the DNA recovered in the crime scene is really from that of the murder suspect or from the innocent bystander who just came by an accidentally left his DNA in that place unless there will be other corroborative evidence that could surely pinpoint that a person actually did the crime.


Отправить комментарий