I’ve never been an advocate of the use of DNA evidence in forensics, though I understand the need for it, so I’ll be the first to say I’m not a fan. I don’t like the idea of some detective using our DNA as evidence. I’ve always been a fan of DNA evidence being used in criminal cases, as it’s generally used for convicting people, not convicting people of the crimes they committed.
The use of DNA evidence has its roots in the old days when people could only use blood in criminal cases. Because even if you were to show up with the same DNA as the perpetrator, it could be used to disprove that you had been at the scene of the crime, but not necessarily convict you. Over the years though, DNA has been used in forensics to solve crimes and solve crimes that were never solved before.
It does not always work as intended though. For example, DNA evidence has been used to convict people for their crimes that were never solved. Because when a person’s DNA is placed on a piece of paper and stuck into an envelope, that paper will be destroyed after a while, but the envelope will be kept as a witness of the crime. The way some forensics work is that if you are convicted of the crime, you will be kept as a witness against the victim, the real victim.
In science we call this “confirmation bias.” This is where we tend to look for evidence that confirms what we already think about or believe. In forensics, that same effect can be used to convict people, but in many cases, the evidence is so flimsy that the person who looks for it is not actually the person who used the crime to convict. What’s more, this happens in a lot of cases that have nothing to do with science.
The crime in question was the theft of a DNA sample taken from a crime scene. The crime scene was the victim’s house, and the DNA was taken from a victim that was not the actual defendant. The defendant in question was convicted for the crime in question, and that is why he was later convicted for all of the crimes that followed it.
A lot of the people who use DNA technology have been convicted on a technicality, and those technicalities make things complicated, which means that they often try to appeal to a different part of the brain. If the jury is looking at the technology as a crime and not a tool that is used to try to convict someone, it opens the door for a plea bargain, which means that the defendant will get off with a lighter sentence.
The problem with using DNA tech is that it can open the door to a whole new array of possibilities for forensic science and how it can be used to convict people. The most obvious example is when a DNA match is found. It allows for a number of other ways for the jury to be convinced that the case was not made by the defendant’s DNA. The jury will see that a DNA match was found and believe that the defendant is guilty because his DNA matches that of the evidence.
Also, and even more important, it allows for the possibility that the DNA is not from the defendant at all but is from a third party, a stranger, a possible donor, or a match to a DNA profile of another suspect. Such a match would not be enough to convict a defendant, but it is likely enough to be the basis for a search warrant.
The problem with DNA evidence is that it is not a “guilty until proven innocent” case, and that is always open to the possibility of a “third-party” DNA, or a match to another suspect. As such, it is very important to be aware of the possibility of a match to another suspect or suspect’s DNA, as well as the possibility of matching evidence to a third-party.
Of course the only way to know is to test, and that’s why DNA testing is so important. So if another suspect is found to have a DNA match to the evidence, then that person is a suspect. Of course, the same holds true for a match to a third party, but not all matches are suspect. In any case, the same goes for a match to a DNA database as well.