Reasonable doubt?

[Rheghead]

You are a member of a jury in a murder trial.

The evidence of the trial securely (in your opinion) puts the accused in the area of the murder scene with the means to do it with a motive to kill but there are no eye witnesses, etc. The crux of your decision of guilt lies on the DNA evidence.

Which probability/odds that the DNA would match a person would convince you that the accused is guilty beyond 'reasonable doubt'?

[WeeBurd]

It wouldn't take too much on my part, if all the other evidence was presented, and it looked conclusive, and DNA was simply the final bit. Here's hoping I never make it onto a jury! [lol]

[golach]

Done my bit on a jury on a serious assault case....it was hard...but I would go with the DNA....I watch CSI

[DeHaviLand]

If he's in court, he's obviously guilty. Hang him, I say.

[Lolabelle]

I said 1,000,000 but I think really that I wouldn't have a clue. It would depend on so much. I am usually very discerning as to people's nature. So I think I would use my gut feeling along with the evidence presented. I think, actually, I don't have a clue. I have never been in that situation nor do Iever wish to. But I think that is how I could react... :confused

[Ricco]

I would go with the DNA - the only similarities would be immediate siblings but they would not be exactly the same. Other reasons for the person to be a major suspect would be that they had a track record. Most people have a clean sheet and would very, very rarely but suspects unless there were a clear eye witness account.

Hangin's too good - H, D & Q.

[disgust]

[orkneylass]

It would be hard to go on DNA alone - there would have to be some other evidence. Although it is rare, DNA evidence can be misleading, and there is also the question of how it got to be at the crime scene. i read an amazing story about a woman who has a very rare condition which means that she does not pass her DNA on to her children. She fell out with her partner so he demanded a paternity test, they found that he was the father but she was not the mother!!! They reconciled and social workers were present at the birth of the next child, at which point they could prove that she had given birth to a child that did not have her DNA. I thought it was an incredible story and it shook my faith a bit in the idea that there are natural laws relating to DNA that are absolute!

[Rheghead]

The results of the poll are quite interesting. There are 7 orgers who think that if the DNA evidence matches the accused and the odds of it matching someone else are 1 in a million then they think the conviction is unsafe. Hmmm, surely 1 in a million is beyond reasonable doubt??:confused

And yet there are 8 so far that reckon that the odds of less than 1 in ten but greater than 1 in 100 matching someone else than the accused is sufficient. Hmmm, i would acquit on those.

[Tubthumper]

Having heard about the Scottish Fingerprint Service(?) making a complete pigs ear of analysis of evidence submissions in a number of high profile cases, and serious concerns being raised about the competence of staff, the calibration of equipment, the analysis techniques used etc. and having heard of a number of miscarriages of justice where the prosecution/Polis have managed to 'influence' a jury by negelcting to include evidence and so on...
I'd hate to HD&Q anyone just in case.
After all, the DNA evidence is only as sound as the person who did the anaysis...

[sassylass]

It would be hard to go on DNA alone - there would have to be some other evidence. Although it is rare, DNA evidence can be misleading, and there is also the question of how it got to be at the crime scene. i read an amazing story about a woman who has a very rare condition which means that she does not pass her DNA on to her children. She fell out with her partner so he demanded a paternity test, they found that he was the father but she was not the mother!!! They reconciled and social workers were present at the birth of the next child, at which point they could prove that she had given birth to a child that did not have her DNA. I thought it was an incredible story and it shook my faith a bit in the idea that there are natural laws relating to DNA that are absolute!

I'm with you orkneylass, I saw that documentary too. The mother was a perfectly normal looking chimaera. As an embryo, her twin sister had melded with her, which made some parts of her body have one DNA and other parts have another DNA.

It has made me think twice about relying soley upon DNA evidence.

Of course, the difference here is that woman had to prove she was involved, as opposed to trying to prove she was not.