# DNA’s Dirty Little Secret [Forensic Science is not infallble by a long shot!]



## ChristianTrader (Sep 4, 2010)

*DNA’s Dirty Little Secret [Forensic Science is not infallible by a long shot!]*

_Typically, law enforcement and prosecutors rely on FBI estimates for the rarity of a given DNA profile—a figure can be as remote as one in many trillions when investigators have all thirteen markers to work with. In Puckett’s case, where there were only five and a half markers available, the San Francisco crime lab put the figure at one in 1.1 million—still remote enough to erase any reasonable doubt of his guilt. The problem is that, according to most scientists, this statistic is only relevant when DNA material is used to link a crime directly to a suspect identified through eyewitness testimony or other evidence. In cases where a suspect is found by searching through large databases, the chances of accidentally hitting on the wrong person are orders of magnitude higher._

DNA&rsquo;s Dirty Little Secret - Michael Bobelian

Also see: DNA fingerprinting 'can sometimes give the wrong results' | Mail Online


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Sep 4, 2010)

It strikes me as interesting how important certainty is to the mind of man and how modern man is always looking to science to provide that which it cannot.


----------



## yeutter (Sep 6, 2010)

DNA is helpful in excluding a suspect. It is less conclusive in establishing guilt.


----------

