Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

TexasMommaWithAHat

(3,212 posts)
102. Just How Easily DNA Transfer Can Take Place
Fri Mar 27, 2015, 02:50 PM
Mar 2015

An Interview with Professor Gill, probably the top expert in the world on DNA profiling:


Q. What other cases have you had experience with elsewhere in the world, which would help us to put his Italian case into context?

A. There is one case I can allude to, which is the case of Adam Scott, which is quite a notorious case here in the UK. A man was accused of a rape, because his DNA profile was obtained from the swabs – the vaginal swabs, and it matched a man who was some hundreds of kilometres away from the crime scene. And he denied ever having been in the place in his life. The evidence was the DNA profile. He was arrested and incarcerated for about six months, and all the time he was protesting his innocence. Luckily for him it came to light that there had been a contamination event in the actual laboratory. His DNA profile had actually been submitted to the same laboratory a couple of weeks previously, and his DNA profile from that particular event from saliva, was transmitted into the casework analysis for the second system. So of course he came up positive for this particular case, but his DNA had actually been transferred from a previous event. So this is a very good illustration of DNA actually moving within the laboratory, and not only that, it can move from one case to another case. Fortunately for him there was sufficient evidence to show that contamination had actually occurred, and he was eventually released, although he was in prison for about six months before he was set free. So the fact that this kind of event can happen should make us all very concerned, and it should make us all very very aware that this is probably not a one off example. The problem is that if you observe a contamination event, and you prove a contamination event has occurred, then there are probably a large number of cases where (it has) occurred and you have not verified that a contamination event has actually happened; and therefore it is missed, and that is my biggest concern I think. For every mistake that you find, there are many which go undiscovered, and that means that there are probably innocent people in prison.

Q. Professor Gill, before taking our leave, could you give a final message to the Italian Public and its justice system on this complicated and poorly understood theme, with a view to pointing the way to how things might be improved in the future.

A. The first thing to do is to forget everything that you think you know about forensic science that you have gathered from TV shows. This is completely wrong, and really we have to start again. Forensic science is the same as any other science. That means that we need to make sure that we have very good evidence, and critically we always need to explore all possibilities, not just one or two obvious ones, but particularly how did the DNA get there, when did it get there? Is there evidence for contamination? And even when there isn’t evidence for contamination, are we sure that we are looking for it? Are laboratories themselves actually in a fit position to carry out this kind of profiling? Do they carry out laboratory controls to look for evidence of contamination within the laboratory, for example? How often do they clean the laboratory? Are they changing their latex gloves in between handling evidence for example? There are many, many important things to consider. The problem is that once a DNA profile is obtained, then the (DNA) evidence seems to counter evidence that points away from the suspect. And I call this the ‘swamping effect’. Everyone is so blinded by the huge power of DNA profiling that the obvious falls by the wayside. So DNA always has to be considered in the context of the other evidence, and should never be considered by itself.

You can read more at http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/peter-gill-interview/

And if you don't like that source, you can find many other sources. He is world-reknowned in his field.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

For those that would care to look at the Treaty before rendering an international law legal opinion: Fred Sanders Mar 2015 #1
Italy passed legislation AFTER the treaty was signed that had a huge impact on the fairness of the pnwmom Mar 2015 #24
Thanks, pnwmom. elleng Mar 2015 #29
Thank you! nt pnwmom Mar 2015 #30
Someone can't read Spider Jerusalem Mar 2015 #58
'Someone' is an attorney, elleng Mar 2015 #60
So? Doesn't make him any less wrong. Spider Jerusalem Mar 2015 #62
Some folks are not reading the actual Treaty or understanding it, or why there can NEVER be another trial by Fred Sanders Mar 2015 #67
Evidentiary rules of admission of recorded out of Court statements in criminal trial procedures do not meet any of the treaty exemptions. Fred Sanders Mar 2015 #31
The US could never have anticipated the need to have such an exemption in the treaty, pnwmom Mar 2015 #34
All of what you say may be true, but the rule of law remains. The current treaty is what governs. Fred Sanders Mar 2015 #41
Except this particular "evidentiary change" removed the presumption of innocence, which is a basic pnwmom Mar 2015 #45
I disagree with your opinion of the result being so drastic...no one would bring that argument up Fred Sanders Mar 2015 #48
Ultimately the State Department will decide, not a judge. All a judge will do pnwmom Mar 2015 #50
A re-trial is not double jeopardy. Happens all the time, right in America...appeals are not trials. Fred Sanders Mar 2015 #55
The Italian system is not comparable to ours. Our "appeals" only look at the pnwmom Mar 2015 #59
All I can say is your comparisons between these two legal systems is erroneous on several points. Fred Sanders Mar 2015 #66
In what respect? You obviously aren't familiar enough with the Italian system to say. n/t pnwmom Mar 2015 #73
Ditto to you on the American criminal law system. Fred Sanders Mar 2015 #76
You're the one making the claim. Demonstrate it. What errors have I made? pnwmom Mar 2015 #77
Or at the very least should be renegotiated. KamaAina Mar 2015 #64
Fuck Alan Dershowitz and his half baked opinions. MADem Mar 2015 #89
Indeed kcr Mar 2015 #111
And given that Miss Knox's case has been overturned, with no future redress available to that MADem Mar 2015 #112
No. LuvNewcastle Mar 2015 #2
You would think our diplomats and their diplomats can come to a mutually face saving solution./NT DemocratSinceBirth Mar 2015 #3
I agree. LuvNewcastle Mar 2015 #5
I was reading when Hillary Clinton was SOS DemocratSinceBirth Mar 2015 #9
And our diplimats, negotiators and representatives dumbcat Mar 2015 #10
Hard cases make bad laws./NT DemocratSinceBirth Mar 2015 #12
Its not just Europe. Italy has extradition treaties all over the world. former9thward Mar 2015 #15
No, though I believe she is factually guilty. Chan790 Mar 2015 #4
I don't know how anyone who has looked at the evidence can say that. FourScore Mar 2015 #11
All of that not-withstanding... Chan790 Mar 2015 #18
It would not be hard for a strong man armed with a knife to rape and murder a smaller woman. pnwmom Mar 2015 #25
Chan doesn't seem to know much about male female physical interactions. dolphinsandtuna Mar 2015 #68
Her parents said that this petite woman had taken some kind of self-defense lessons, pnwmom Mar 2015 #72
The biggest factor is not the evidence, but where a person lives. DanTex Mar 2015 #19
Bottom Line: As bad as the US court system is, Italy's is absolutely horrific by comparison. -eom- HuckleB Mar 2015 #6
I don;t know if she did it... Adrahil Mar 2015 #7
No. NCTraveler Mar 2015 #8
Do whatever they would normally do under the law treestar Mar 2015 #13
Rule of law. Believe in it or not. This is an actual white hat/black hat question. Fred Sanders Mar 2015 #36
Yes, in the interest of Justice dissentient Mar 2015 #14
If the U.S. is not going to honor a treaty they should not have signed it. former9thward Mar 2015 #16
After the US signed the treaty, Italy passed fast track trial legislation that effectively removed pnwmom Mar 2015 #33
Was the treaty changed? How do in-trial evidentiary law amendments fall within the exemptions in the treaty? Fred Sanders Mar 2015 #37
They don't. The justice system was changed. The treaty was signed pnwmom Mar 2015 #42
It is an evidentiary and criminal procedure change, not a question of fundamental rights. Fred Sanders Mar 2015 #44
The right to confront your accuser IS a fundamental right pnwmom Mar 2015 #47
The right to confront your accuser is not a fundamental right? TexasMommaWithAHat Mar 2015 #91
Actually, it's Italy, and not the U.S., who is attempting to circumvent the treaty. Xithras Mar 2015 #65
"An acquittal was issued" is not the same as your phrase "was aquitted". The words are different.... Fred Sanders Mar 2015 #70
More "people can't read" Spider Jerusalem Mar 2015 #75
You know what. You're right. I read that wrong. Xithras Mar 2015 #87
Thank you, Counselor! KamaAina Mar 2015 #97
That's fine...we would just kidnap them off the streets of Milan alcibiades_mystery Mar 2015 #95
What evidence is there that she even might have done it? RedCappedBandit Mar 2015 #17
For example, a knife with her DNA on the handle and the victim's on the blade. DanTex Mar 2015 #20
From what I recall that was largely debunked. RedCappedBandit Mar 2015 #23
That depends who you ask. DanTex Mar 2015 #28
Reasonable doubt. Reasonable doubt. Reasonable doubt. What is the point of your continuing pnwmom Mar 2015 #43
I was responding to a question about the DNA knife. DanTex Mar 2015 #49
Please read the Hellman report section by the two Court-appointed independent forensic pnwmom Mar 2015 #53
OK, or I could tell you to read the Nencini report, which refutes the Hellman report... DanTex Mar 2015 #57
I have read the Nencini report and if you have, you must realize that it is nonsense. n/t pnwmom Mar 2015 #63
Yes I suppose you could find countless pages one way or the other RedCappedBandit Mar 2015 #56
Your opinion is a fair and defensible one. DanTex Mar 2015 #61
If you really watched the handling of the bra clasp TexasMommaWithAHat Mar 2015 #94
A lot of people have watched the video and come to a different conclusion. DanTex Mar 2015 #96
Just How Easily DNA Transfer Can Take Place TexasMommaWithAHat Mar 2015 #102
Yes, that's really just a generic argument that contamination can occur. DanTex Mar 2015 #105
They investigators made every single mistake TexasMommaWithAHat Mar 2015 #106
Well, maybe they should let Rudy Guede go then. DanTex Mar 2015 #107
Well, his print was clearly on her pillow TexasMommaWithAHat Mar 2015 #108
But it is still "any evidence"...since you asked. Fred Sanders Mar 2015 #38
Yes, I did ask. Thanks RedCappedBandit Mar 2015 #51
Thanks for the poll ! The results are quite illuminating. Bonx Mar 2015 #21
extraditing someone to a kangaroo court is in no ones best interests. nt Javaman Mar 2015 #22
There is no way that Amanda Knox should extradicted Gothmog Mar 2015 #26
No, because: elleng Mar 2015 #27
pretty much Johonny Mar 2015 #35
Appeals do not count as "trials". Fred Sanders Mar 2015 #39
I wouldn't turn over anyone to that insane court system CanonRay Mar 2015 #32
Italy seems fine with it - and around another one hundred countries with Italian Extradition Treaties. Fred Sanders Mar 2015 #40
Italy and the Ukraine have the worst track record with the European Supreme Court TexasMommaWithAHat Mar 2015 #104
Should we abide by any of our foreign treaties? Or just when we feel like it. DanTex Mar 2015 #46
Seems like celebrity status, either guilty or innocent, brings with it a complete disregard for rule of law... Fred Sanders Mar 2015 #52
You know,Canada will refuse to extradite if the death sentence will apply. Wash. state Desk Jet Mar 2015 #109
Some countries have death penalty exemptions in the treaty. DanTex Mar 2015 #113
I've been thinking about that ! Wash. state Desk Jet Mar 2015 #114
Means, motive and opportunity. Manifestor_of_Light Mar 2015 #54
No President or SOS will consent to extradition. Political suicide. wyldwolf Mar 2015 #69
Different issue. "Should the United States...." Fred Sanders Mar 2015 #71
not in the public's mind. wyldwolf Mar 2015 #82
Moot, not mute. n/t tammywammy Mar 2015 #74
And it doesn't mean "Irrelevant", it means "debatable" (see: "moot court" in law school). Spider Jerusalem Mar 2015 #78
Yes. In MOOT Court....in which debate is the entire purpose. But the result is moot. Fred Sanders Mar 2015 #80
definition: wyldwolf Mar 2015 #83
But "a moot point" is one that is subject to debate. Spider Jerusalem Mar 2015 #85
that may not come to any satisfactory conclusion or whose conclusion may be meaningless. wyldwolf Mar 2015 #88
The poll results are moot. I have to go now, so I will be mute for a while. Fred Sanders Mar 2015 #79
No. moo point. wyldwolf Mar 2015 #81
Didn't think it was a spelling error. tammywammy Mar 2015 #84
auto correct is a best... boost... BEAST wyldwolf Mar 2015 #86
My favorite was when I was telling a friend tammywammy Mar 2015 #92
Auto-check your own words, is second best. Fred Sanders Mar 2015 #93
haha beat me to it alcibiades_mystery Mar 2015 #99
You're both wrong. It's a "Moo Point," like a cow's opinion alcibiades_mystery Mar 2015 #98
No Kalidurga Mar 2015 #90
My prediction: within the next 10 years, Ms. Knox will find herself before another court alcibiades_mystery Mar 2015 #100
How's the peeping? DanTex Mar 2015 #101
RIP PSH: That's one of the best lines of his long and storied career alcibiades_mystery Mar 2015 #103
This issue is now moot Gothmog Mar 2015 #110
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Should the United States ...»Reply #102