1. 1

2. Science and law are two distinct professions that
are increasingly becoming co-mingled as
technology develops (Bezak, 1992) Science Law
Techniques to identify criminals have evolved at a fast pace
because of science.
biological markers
Eyewitness-dependent
identification
DNA
anthropometry fingerprinting
fingerprinting 2

3. What pushed the paradigm shift from eyewitness accounts to biological
markers approach to criminal identification?
The impetus behind the development of biometric criminal
identification technologies in the late nineteenth century
include factors such as rapid urbanization; the increasing
anonymity of urban life; and the dissolving of local
networks familiarity in which individuals were “known” by
their neighbours (Cole, n.d.)
3

4. Anthropometry
Anthropometry is a system The Bertillon system was
using body measurements generally accepted for thirty
of adult individuals for years (German, 2012).
personal identification
(Moenssens, 2008). Photographs and anthropometric
descriptions are used at a later time to
identify a criminal, thus establishing his
It relies on the taking of the criminal history.
measurements of bony parts
of the body, including DOWNFALL:
measurements of the
cartilaginous human ear.
4

5. Fingerprinting
The downfall of His report is anchored on the
anthropometry was used in documentation of 22 cases,
the rise of newer technology most involving violent crimes, in
called fingerprinting. which fingerprint evidence
German (2012) called this as turned out to be dead wrong.
the beginning of
“fingerprinting as infallible Dye (2005) further iterated,
means of personal however, that the fingerprints
identification” did not lie; rather the experts
who matched them with a
Dye (2005) reported that a suspect were wrong.
study showed fingerprint
evidence is not infallible.
5

6. DNA Fingerprinting
Many highly polymorphic minisatellite loci can be detected
Genetic information was simultaneously in the human genome by hybridization to probes
consisting of tandem repeats of the 'core' sequence.
of seemingly
peripheral interest to The resulting DNA fingerprints produced by Southern blot
hybridization are comprised of multiple hypervariable DNA
forensic scientists for fragments, show somatic and germline stability and are
a number of years completely specific to an individual.
(Saferstein, 2006) We now show that this technique can be used for forensic
purposes; DNA of high relative molecular mass (Mr) can be
isolated from 4-yr-old bloodstains and semen stains made on
In 1985, this changed cotton cloth and digested to produce DNA fingerprints
when Alec Jeffreys suitable for individual identification.
reported in the British Further, sperm nuclei can be separated from vaginal cellular
Nature Journal the debris, obtained from semen-contaminated vaginal swabs,
enabling positive identification of the male donor/suspect.
Forensic application
of DNA 'fingerprints It is envisaged that DNA fingerprinting will revolutionize
forensic biology particularly with regard to the identification
of rape suspects. 6

7. Pate (n.d.), Vaca (1995)
and Saferstein (2006)
reported that this
process was the first
scientifically
accepted protocol in
the US for forensic
characterization of
DNA.
7

8. Semikhodskii (2007) describes the question whether or not DNA
evidence on its own is enough to convict an accused as one of the
most talked about points regarding evidence.
Thompson (2008) in his paper for the Council of Responsible
Genetics entitled “The Potential for Error in Forensic DNA Testing
(and How That Complicates the Use of DNA Databases for
Criminal Identification” argues that forensic DNA testing may
bring about false incriminations by means of (1) coincidental
profile matches between different people; (2) inadvertent or
accidental transfer of cellular material or DNA one item to
another; (3) errors in identification or labelling of samples; (4)
misinterpretation of test results; and (5) intentional planting of
biological evidence.
8

9. In 2009, Victorian Police Commissioner Simon Overland to order his
officers to stop giving DNA evidence in court proceeding over
concerns about discrepancies between the science and
interpretation of samples.
Cole (n.d.) highlighted the objections against DNA databases taking
grounds on (1) the threat of eugenics; (2) reliability of forensic
evidence; and (3) breadth of databases.
9

10. Based on case readings, doubts fall into the following themes: 1)
coincidental profile matches; (2) unintentional attribution of
DNA profile to another; (3) unfounded threats like planting of
evidences and eugenics; and (4) breadth of database. Of these
four, only the first can be deliberated within the world of “pure”
science thereby crediting such doubts to DNA technology itself.
10

11. Coincidental Profile Match
In the cases Thomson reviewed for the past years, evidentiary
samples from crime scenes are reported to be often incomplete
or partial DNA profiles. Limited quantities of DNA can make it
impossible to genotype at every locus (STR uses 13 loci as
markers). In some instances, the test yields no information about
the genotype at a particular locus; in some instances one of the
two alleles at a locus will become undetectable.
Koehler (1993) supports that because partial profiles contain
fewer genetic markers than complete profiles, they are more likely
to match someone by chance.
11

12. Profile B and C are examples of partial DNA profiles. In both cases
these partial profiles would be deemed to “match” Profile A
because every allele in the partial profiles is also found in the full
profile. Hence, we have a coincidental profile match brought
about by partial DNA profiles.
12

13. Landmark cases of coincidental match:
US. BBC News (2007) reported that in 1999, in Swindon, a man
with Parkinson's Disease was arrested, and charged with a
burglary in Bolton. He was frail and had never been there. But his
DNA sample matched one taken from the crime scene (a 6 locus
partial DNA as evidence).
Similarly, in 2004, Sweeney and Main reported in Chicago
Times that botched DNA six locus partial DNA profile report
falsely implicates a woman. A as evidence was compared against a
state offender database. When the search produced a hit, the
police arrested the woman but she was eventually released
considering a strong alibi of being in the custody of a state prison
at the time of burglary.
13

14. Unintentional attribution of DNA profile to another
Unintentional attribution of DNA profile to another could be
brought about by cross-contamination of samples, accidental
transfer of DNA from one sample to another, mislabelling of
samples, and misinterpretation of samples.
Landmark cases:
Rape Case: Brian Kelly in Scotland
Murder of a toddler Jaidyn Leskie in Australia
14

15. Eugenics
The argument is based on George Annas “genetic
exceptionalism” concept (Thompson, 2008).
Genetic identification was distinguished from supposedly
harmless biometric identification technologies like fingerprinting.
Simply put, unlike fingerprints, genes contain information
about an individual’s racial and ethnic heritage, disease
susceptibility, and even behavioural propensities. The author
put it simply with “insurance companies, employers or other
government agencies might raid the data for health-related data,
leading to genetic discrimination against individuals or groups.
15

16. Gans and Urbas (2002) maintain the benefits of DNA
identification in the Criminal Justice System. They
presented twelve significant Australian DNA cases.
One of which is that of Desmond Applebee within the
Australian Capital Territory. This was the first use of
DNA evidence in Australian criminal proceedings. The
accused was charged with sexual assault and initially
denied any contact. He altered his defense to
consensual intercourse after DNA evidence was
admitted as part of the case. He was eventually
convicted by the jury.
16

17. In light of the issue on coincidental profile match, Kaye and
Sensabaugh (2000) and Freckelton and Selby (2000) advocate
ways to reduce error. The number of DNA features profiled can be
increased. Similarly, possible suspects can be tested or excluded
by mass screenings or database searches.
As previously noted, unintentional attribution of DNA profile to
another could be brought about by cross-contamination of
samples, accidental transfer of DNA from one sample to another
and mislabelling of samples. Errors brought by these unintentional
attributions can be reduced by separating the profile of suspect
and crime samples. In addition, stringent crime scene and
laboratory protocols can be introduced to avoid contamination.
And if possible, a part of the crime sample could be preserved
prior to testing.
17

18. Contrary to eugenics, the National Institute of Justice
(2000) and van Ooschot, et al. (2001) argue that the
present limits of genetic science means that a direct
analysis of a person’s DNA will yield only limited
information about individual characteristics.
As to the strength of DNA fingerprinting, there have
been no known false DNA matches in Australia, but
there have been noteworthy instances in other
countries (the previously discussed cases in UK and
Chicago). Similarly argued by Gans and Urbas is that
the errors in the handling of samples or the reporting
of results can be largely avoided through protocols.
18

19. Following Mueller’s conclusion, DNA typing can be a
powerful tool in forensics (1993).
The risks of false or misleading results attributed to DNA
fingerprinting should not be considered as just cause to
reject its use in criminal investigations and identification.
This is most typical when there is independent evidence
about a suspect’s guilt or innocence.
Another concern highlighted by this review is the need for
policies and protocols which would ensure that
laboratories carrying out DNA fingerprinting would
perform the tests with the highest accuracy possible.
19