CLPEX Chat Board

There's more to bodily material deposition than the small portion of DNA used in most forensics, but interesting:

Scientists in Israel have demonstrated that it is possible to fabricate DNA evidence, undermining the credibility of what has been considered the gold standard of proof in criminal cases.

“DNA is a lot easier to plant at a crime scene than fingerprints,” she said. “We’re creating a criminal justice system that is increasingly relying on this technology.”

more...


http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/18/scien ... .html?_r=1

Interesting, but your average crook isn't going to be fabricating DNA evidence. Why even bother fabricating DNA evidence when you could simply overwhelm a scene with DNA from several different sources that all point to different potential donors?

http://www.ptinews.com/news/235536_DNA- ... scientists

Here's a link to another article (or maybe the same one) in case you don't feel like registering for the NY Times version.

SConner wrote:Interesting, but your average crook isn't going to be fabricating DNA evidence.

Fingerprints have been around for over 100 years and the majority of crooks are too stupid to even wear gloves. If the bad guys can't figure that one out, I don't think DNA has much to worry about.

SConner wrote:Interesting, but your average crook isn't going to be fabricating DNA evidence. Why even bother fabricating DNA evidence when you could simply overwhelm a scene with DNA from several different sources that all point to different potential donors?

Even most criminals do not fabricate DNA, this possibility will bring trouble to the DNA evidence. Now the defense lawyer can say the DNA evidence was probably fabricated by real criminals or police and therefore makes DNA evidence not acceptable in the courts unless the police can prove it is not fabricated. I read an article entitled "Latent Fingerprint Evidence: Fabrication, Not Error" By Pat A. Wertheim (http://www.nacdl.org/public.nsf/01c1e76 ... enDocument). The opinion of this article is that latent fabrication is more frequent than false individualization and an expert can tell if a latent evidence is fabricated.

Jianjiang Feng
MSU

minu wrote:Now the defense lawyer can say the DNA evidence was probably fabricated by real criminals or police and therefore makes DNA evidence not acceptable in the courts unless the police can prove it is not fabricated. . . . . I read an article entitled "Latent Fingerprint Evidence: Fabrication, Not Error" By Pat A. Wertheim (http://www.nacdl.org/public.nsf/01c1e76 ... enDocument). The opinion of this article is that latent fabrication is more frequent than false individualization and an expert can tell if a latent evidence is fabricated.

I doubt a defense attorney can make an allegation that the defendant's DNA was "planted," either by the "real criminal" or by the police, and automatically get the evidence thrown out. Simply making such a charge without any supporting evidence would hardly stand up against the photos, chain of custody, and documentation that accompanies most evidence collected by police and submitted to crime labs for analysis. Of course, a smart criminal may take a few items with DNA (coke cans, cigarette butts, etc.) with him to scatter at a crime scene, but I go back to my earlier post. Most criminals are too stupid to wear gloves, even after a century of convictions based on fingerprints. What makes anybody think they are smart enough to plant DNA evidence? Some may be, but I believe the majority commit their crimes without much forethought.

Police "fabrication" is another matter. If the track record of police fabricating fingerprint evidence is any indication, there may well be crime labs with evidence submitted by officers as having been collected at a scene when it was not. For example, David Harding was known to take trash bags from outside a suspect's house, fingerprint the items inside, and present the lifts as having come from a crime scene. What would prevent a similarly minded officer from taking a coke can from a trash bag and slipping it into the evidence to be submitted to the crime lab for DNA testing?

Some fingerprint fabrications are no doubt so cleverly done as to be able to fool the sharpest fingerprint expert. Likewise, some DNA planting may be done cleverly enough to fool an alert DNA Analyst. It's something we have to be aware of. But we have to recognize that the vast, vast majority of police (and crime lab personnel) are above such activities. Evidence accompanied by crime scene photos, multiple scene officers, and good chain of custody in sealed containers should be considered reliable in the absence of strong indication to the contrary.

Just like in Scientists in Israel have demonstrated that it is possible to fabricate DNA evidence



_________________
Orange County's best criminal attorneys