Location: Wiltshire, UK
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
Post 322294 posted on 23-2-2008 at 11:26
The problem I have is the inadequacy of the testing, I can't find the info but it seems that one can expect something like a dozen non-familial
matches for an individual in the population of the UK. This is sufficient for civil law in the UK, so you may well be involved in a case and found
'guilty' simply because the test says you have similar enough DNA to the real culprit. And it's all very well for the proponents to say "But it
will only be part of the evidence." but the example of evidence from such specialists as Professor Meadow inter alia suggest that such 'specialist'
evidence is given untoward emphasis.
Location: Riverton, South Australia
Theme: Windows XP Silver
Member Is Online
Mood: Gone crazy, Back soo
Post 322319 posted on 23-2-2008 at 13:14
I agree with DW, DNA should be recorded at birth. If you do not engage in any felonious employment, you should be quite able to defend any scurrilous
accusations made against you. It would also make it much easier to identify victims in the event of a catastrophe.
You are a guest, as a guest you can only see a maximum of 3 posts per thread.