Detection technique found faulty so use suspended
Discussion
On the news yesterday and today. I'm so excited that now they've found a single case where the conviction would have been unsafe due to the accuracy of the detection method, they've had to suspend its use.
Of course it's that DNA method I'm talking about, but for some reason they don't think the exact same argument applies towards the countless unsafe convictions of motorists using the dodgyscope.
I honestly think they regard a speeding conviction as trivial plus because nearly everyone speeds at some point in time on every journey, what does it matter if the device was right or wrong? They've only got what's coming.
What a way to run a country.
SM
Of course it's that DNA method I'm talking about, but for some reason they don't think the exact same argument applies towards the countless unsafe convictions of motorists using the dodgyscope.
I honestly think they regard a speeding conviction as trivial plus because nearly everyone speeds at some point in time on every journey, what does it matter if the device was right or wrong? They've only got what's coming.
What a way to run a country.
SM
I'm mazed cameras are still being used tbh, there have been many reportings of errors but the process has been made difficult to challenge and most people can't be bothered with the hassle, so they just pay up 
Only saw the back end of a report about the DNA case but find it more than a little worrying that the floodgates might be opened for a lot of very dangerous people. How was it discredited?
wrinx
Only saw the back end of a report about the DNA case but find it more than a little worrying that the floodgates might be opened for a lot of very dangerous people. How was it discredited?
wrinx
BBC report here:
I also note that only pending prosecutions are being assessed. There's no intention to review previous convictions.
All in all I think it's an attempt to limit the fallout rather than an acceptance that the approach is flawed. In fact, this is much more in line with the speed camera situation than it appears at first sight.
BBC said:
DNA test halted after Omagh case
Police have suspended the use of a controversial DNA technique following the Omagh bomb verdict.
Earlier, the Crown Prosecution Service said it would review live prosecutions in England and Wales using Low Copy Number (LCN) DNA testing.
Northern Ireland's Chief Constable, Sir Hugh Orde, also said he had instigated an immediate review of cases there.
Omagh suspect Sean Hoey was cleared on Thursday of a total of 58 charges, including 29 murders.
Tony Lake, spokesman for the Association of Chief Police Officers (Acpo), announced the interim suspension of the use of LCN DNA testing by the Forensic Science Service (FSS).
He said: "In England and Wales DNA evidence has to be corroborated by other evidence.
"However, as a precautionary measure the Crown Prosecution Service are currently reviewing the pending cases in which Low Copy DNA profiling is to form part of the prosecution case to see whether any may be affected.
"The review will take into account the terms of the judgement and the weight that is to be attached to the DNA evidence."
The BBC's Michael Buchanan said that Acpo produced a confidential report in August which called for the technique to be urgently reviewed.
Tiny samples
The independent forensic science regulator will be carrying out the review.
The post was created by the Home Office in July this year to monitor the standards of evidence provided by the FSS and other private sector companies.
LCN allows genetic profiles of offenders to be created from very small tissue samples that have only been detectable with new techniques available since 1999.
These can be as tiny as a millionth the size of a grain of salt which can amount to as little as a few cells of skin or sweat left in a fingerprint.
The FSS say they have used LCN DNA about 21,000 times and generated profiles from items such as matchsticks, weapon handles and grabbed clothing.
To do this, the minute samples must be magnified and this is where critics say error can creep in.
The prosecution in the Omagh case claimed that LCN analysis had shown links between the bomb timers used in the attack and Mr Hoey, a south Armagh electrician.
But the judge rejected the use of the technique because it was not yet seen to be at a sufficiently scientific level to be considered evidence.
Following widespread criticism of Northern Ireland police by relatives of Omagh victims, Sir Hugh said: "I have asked for an urgent review of all cases that rely in any way, shape or form on Low Copy Number DNA."
He said it was at the very cutting edge of science and had been used in the trial because of his determination to build a case.
But Sir Hugh said: "It is a vital ingredient of cases in the future which will bring very guilty people to justice."
A spokesman for the Attorney General said that while a small number of active cases would be reviewed as a precaution, there were "no current plans to review past cases".
Previous cases
LCN testing has been used in a number of other high-profile cases.
It has been reported that it was this technique which was used by the FSS in Birmingham to examine DNA samples from the car hired by the McCanns.
Serial rapist Antoni Imiela was caught after his profile was obtained from minute traces of DNA from items of clothing.
And in 2000 Ian Lowther was convicted of the murder of Mary Gregson, who was walking along the Leeds-Liverpool canal towpath in August 1977.
The DNA LCN technique allowed scientists to go back and generate a DNA profile from an old semen stain originally found on the clothing.
Traditional or so-called "gold standard" DNA profiles created using larger samples of genetic material will not be examined under the review.
Michael Buchanan said LCN DNA was only accepted as evidence in two other countries, New Zealand and the Netherlands, because of concerns over its accuracy.
So it's an "interim suspension", it's only used anyway when there's "corroborating evidence", but it's only legal in 2 other countries worldwide.Police have suspended the use of a controversial DNA technique following the Omagh bomb verdict.
Earlier, the Crown Prosecution Service said it would review live prosecutions in England and Wales using Low Copy Number (LCN) DNA testing.
Northern Ireland's Chief Constable, Sir Hugh Orde, also said he had instigated an immediate review of cases there.
Omagh suspect Sean Hoey was cleared on Thursday of a total of 58 charges, including 29 murders.
Tony Lake, spokesman for the Association of Chief Police Officers (Acpo), announced the interim suspension of the use of LCN DNA testing by the Forensic Science Service (FSS).
He said: "In England and Wales DNA evidence has to be corroborated by other evidence.
"However, as a precautionary measure the Crown Prosecution Service are currently reviewing the pending cases in which Low Copy DNA profiling is to form part of the prosecution case to see whether any may be affected.
"The review will take into account the terms of the judgement and the weight that is to be attached to the DNA evidence."
The BBC's Michael Buchanan said that Acpo produced a confidential report in August which called for the technique to be urgently reviewed.
Tiny samples
The independent forensic science regulator will be carrying out the review.
The post was created by the Home Office in July this year to monitor the standards of evidence provided by the FSS and other private sector companies.
LCN allows genetic profiles of offenders to be created from very small tissue samples that have only been detectable with new techniques available since 1999.
These can be as tiny as a millionth the size of a grain of salt which can amount to as little as a few cells of skin or sweat left in a fingerprint.
The FSS say they have used LCN DNA about 21,000 times and generated profiles from items such as matchsticks, weapon handles and grabbed clothing.
To do this, the minute samples must be magnified and this is where critics say error can creep in.
The prosecution in the Omagh case claimed that LCN analysis had shown links between the bomb timers used in the attack and Mr Hoey, a south Armagh electrician.
But the judge rejected the use of the technique because it was not yet seen to be at a sufficiently scientific level to be considered evidence.
Following widespread criticism of Northern Ireland police by relatives of Omagh victims, Sir Hugh said: "I have asked for an urgent review of all cases that rely in any way, shape or form on Low Copy Number DNA."
He said it was at the very cutting edge of science and had been used in the trial because of his determination to build a case.
But Sir Hugh said: "It is a vital ingredient of cases in the future which will bring very guilty people to justice."
A spokesman for the Attorney General said that while a small number of active cases would be reviewed as a precaution, there were "no current plans to review past cases".
Previous cases
LCN testing has been used in a number of other high-profile cases.
It has been reported that it was this technique which was used by the FSS in Birmingham to examine DNA samples from the car hired by the McCanns.
Serial rapist Antoni Imiela was caught after his profile was obtained from minute traces of DNA from items of clothing.
And in 2000 Ian Lowther was convicted of the murder of Mary Gregson, who was walking along the Leeds-Liverpool canal towpath in August 1977.
The DNA LCN technique allowed scientists to go back and generate a DNA profile from an old semen stain originally found on the clothing.
Traditional or so-called "gold standard" DNA profiles created using larger samples of genetic material will not be examined under the review.
Michael Buchanan said LCN DNA was only accepted as evidence in two other countries, New Zealand and the Netherlands, because of concerns over its accuracy.
I also note that only pending prosecutions are being assessed. There's no intention to review previous convictions.
All in all I think it's an attempt to limit the fallout rather than an acceptance that the approach is flawed. In fact, this is much more in line with the speed camera situation than it appears at first sight.
wrinx said:
I'm mazed cameras are still being used tbh, there have been many reportings of errors but the process has been made difficult to challenge and most people can't be bothered with the hassle, so they just pay up
Only saw the back end of a report about the DNA case but find it more than a little worrying that the floodgates might be opened for a lot of very dangerous people. How was it discredited?
wrinx
It only refers to the "Low copy number" DNA evidence. This is basically the technique which needs to be used in the absence of more stable DNA evidence, and is more sensitive.Only saw the back end of a report about the DNA case but find it more than a little worrying that the floodgates might be opened for a lot of very dangerous people. How was it discredited?
wrinx
It is EXTREMELY expensive to have analysed, and for this reason is generally only used in serious cases. However, there is generally corroborative evidence tendered in such cases.
supermono said:
I honestly think they regard a speeding conviction as trivial plus because nearly everyone speeds at some point in time on every journey, what does it matter if the device was right or wrong? They've only got what's coming.
That's because its not a "crime" but a "tax".wrinx said:
Only saw the back end of a report about the DNA case but find it more than a little worrying that the floodgates might be opened for a lot of very dangerous people. How was it discredited?
The technique is a method of extracting DNA from very low volumes of sample DNA. It has two problems1) DNA is easily transferable at the volumes it can detect at. That means if we have a business meeting and shake hands at the end of it and I go round someone's house, have a drink, before killing them. YOUR dna will be on the glass. The technique will detect your DNA.
2) The test itself is not conclusive in the way "normal" DNA testing is. There is a subjective interpretation to the results when declaring a match.
The technique was developed in the UK and is meant to be used as a pointer for the police to send them in the right direction. It is not meant to be used as a primary piece of evidence.
From what I can see fromt the reports the CPS over played their hand on the "DNA" evidence and the defence explained the issues. Problem is most people and certainly the average jury have no idea what a "DNA match" means and assumes it is a 100% reliable, bang to rights test of guilt.
While it is undoubtly a massively useful technique it is also a very dangerous one as it leads to sloppy police and CPS work, in the same way the MID database does, and why storing DNA profile of innocent people is so bad. Which incidently is a practise that only England and Wales (not Scotland) police do in the world.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff