💾 Archived View for gemini.spam.works › mirrors › textfiles › politics › SPUNK › sp001211.txt captured on 2022-03-01 at 16:50:28.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
D.N.A. - Do Not Accept by Graham Henderson The new Criminal (In)Justice Act gives the police powers to take DNA samples. The outcome of this will be a U.K. wide DNA database. The police will have powers to trawl through this database in a random search for suspects of crime. Michael Howard, at the Tory Party Conference last year, hailed the introduction of this DNA database saying that it would reduce crime and that anyone that had a DNA sample taken would "from that point on know that they were a marked man". Don't be fooled by Tory lies or science, DNA will not be a solve all for crime. Is Your DNA Sample Unique? The biggest database of DNA to date is that of the F.B.I. in the USA. In this database there were three identical matches of DNA that could not be accounted for as errors or multiple entries from the same person. They were simply removed from the list. Research based on this new database was then published in influential science journals worldwide, stating that no multiple matches of DNA sample existed in the F.B.I. database and so DNA was unique to the individual. However as the F.B.I. files were fiddled with, it is clear that two people can have identical DNA. Further proof of this came when samples were taken from small numbers of people from two isolated groups of tribal peoples thousands of miles apart. In this small scale study, identical DNA samples were taken from people in these two separate groups. Random matches between individuals do happen. Your DNA is therefore not necessarily unique to you. Testing of DNA The inventor of the DNA test, Sir Alec Jeffrey, says that the result of DNA testing is "guaranteed foolproof from a good quality sample". DNA is therefore not guaranteed foolproof if the people conducting the tests are not working from a good quality sample. The tests are being conducted and copyrighted by private firms such as Cellmark Diagnostics, a subsidiary of I.C.I. In their promotional material they perpetuate the lie that their tests will "identify one human being with absolute certainty from all others". The reality was different when put into practice by the company. In a blind testing to see how proficient Cellmark were, they made 7 errors from 50 samples. This gave false positives, i.e. a match between two samples where none actually existed. The people running the test them met with Cellmark who were asked to look again at these samples basically giving them an opportunity to rewrite their answers. Can we trust the firms, nevermind the technology, when conducting real tests which could lead to real criminal convictions? A Real Case After a rape in Largs in 1987, Cellmark were employed to do DNA tests on a suspect. On the strength of the information from the DNA test conducted by them, Brian Kelly was convicted and sentenced to six years in Barlinnie. This was inspite of the mass of other evidence, such as a reliable alibi, to show he was actually innocent. The "foolproof", "scientific" evidence was accepted at face value. Brian Kelly was released in 1993 after serving all of his sentence on the basis of DNA "evidence" alone. There are serious doubts as to whether the tests were conducted properly. Whether due to laboratory error leading to cross-contamination of samples or human error of judgement, a person has served a six year sentence for a crime he did not commit. In Brian Kelly's words "DNA has wrecked my life totally". Do Not Accept We must campaign against DNA sampling. We must fight the lie that DNA is foolproof. Don't be blinded by science. Science does not equal truth.