For today’s criminal investigations, DNA evidence has often been the proof that convicts a person or finds them innocence, solves cold-cases that would have otherwise been thought to be impossible, and usually acts as the best possible witness at a crime scene. However, as the article “Touch DNA Might Be Contaminating Crime Scene Evidence” reveals, any contact with another person, even for a brief amount of time, can place an unsuspecting person at a crime scene. A new study, titled “Could Secondary DNA Transfer Falsely Place Someone at the Scene of a Crime?”, by researchers at the University of Indianapolis created a scenario in which there is a two minute handshake. After this contact, one person handles a knife, but when the weapon’s handle was swabbed, the DNA profile of the person who never touched the knife was identified in 85% of the samples tested. According to the study, in one-fifth of these experiments, the person who never was in contact with the knife’s handle was determined to be the only or main contributor of DNA. This is why the concept of “touch DNA”--the DNA that is left behind on anything that one comes in contact with--is being reevaluated in this study. As Cynthia Cale, an author of the paper, states: “Analysts need to be aware that this can happen, and they need to be able to go into court and effectively present this evidence.” She adds that it must be explained to the judge and the jury that there are different possibilities as to why this DNA is there. An example cited in the article, relayed from Cale, depicts the case in which a California man was held for homicide for four months in 2013. This was due to the finding of his DNA underneath the victim’s fingernails. Luckily, however, it was proven that he was innocent. It was discovered that he had been hospitalized before the murder and that the paramedics who responded him were also at the homicide crime scene shortly after. The study is to be expanded in 2016 through experiments that involve DNA testing in smaller time frames instead of two minute handshakes.
As it is clear in the article, DNA now cannot be considered the purest form of evidence in order to convict or prove the innocence of a person. Some, as evident in the cases mentioned, are being wrongly accused and convicted for an action they never committed because of this transfer of DNA that places them at the crime scene. This changes the way how DNA evidence is considered. This discovery emphasizes the necessity to figure out a method to keep the innocent suspects innocent and convict the actual perpetrator.
Although eye-catching and interesting to read, improvements would be encouraged to create a stronger article. To the reader, it is obvious that the article consists mostly of quotes, which is necessary, but it would have been helpful if more detail and background on the case study was included. Also, some part of the article, particularly toward the middle paragraphs, the usage of quotes and the explanation of why “touch DNA” needs to be “rethought, in both a legal and scientific context” did not completely make sense. It took a few rereads to understand what they author intended to be the meaning. Otherwise, this article, “Touch DNA Might Be Contaminating Crime Scene Evidence”, was a new insight into the conflicts that “touch DNA” is now creating.
Augenstein, Seth. "Touch DNA Might Be Contaminating Crime Scene Evidence." Forensic
Magazine. Advantage Business Media, 29 Oct. 2015. Web. 03 Nov. 2015.
11 comments:
Emme Kerj current event 7 comment:
Sarah I thought that you did a great job explaining the article and you presented all of their results really well. You also did a really good job emphasizing that this study and article suggests that DNA might not be the most reliable type of evidence as many think. You also did a good job explaining what “touch DNA” is and how they conducted the research in order to find whether or not just touching someone really leaves your DNA on them enough to then transfer it onto evidence. Overall I think you did a really good job reviewing the article and you explained the research and concepts really well.
One thing that you could have done better in your review was to highlight how important it is for examiners to be cautious when handling evidence. I also think you could have proposed some sort of solution for example to require all people handling evidence to write up people they have come in contact with that they or something like that.
I found this article interesting since we are currently learning about cross-transfer contamination in class and this gives us a real life example of how it can effect a case or the testing in a forensic lab. I was also shocked about the man they thought had murdered someone was in jail for so long even though it was only because he was at a hospital where someone had been at the crime scene before taking care of him. It goes to show how horribly wrong it can go if evidence is not taken care of carefully. I think its scary to think that mistakes like these can be made because the people that are wrongfully accused of crimes or convicted with contaminated evidence just have their lives completely ruined.
Works cited: http://www.forensicmag.com/articles/2015/10/touch-dna-might-be-contaminating-crime-scene-evidence
MLA:
Augenstein, Seth. "Touch DNA Might Be Contaminating Crime Scene Evidence." Forensic Magazine. N.p., 29 Oct. 2015. Web. 05 Nov. 2015.
I reviewed the article “Touch DNA Might Be Contaminating Crime Scene Evidence” which was an interesting article about how not all evidence may not be the best way to identify a suspect. I thought that Sara did a great job on her summary. She was exceptionally thorough in explaining the main points as well as the experiment that was used to prove how DNA contact may lead forensics scientists on the wrong direction. I liked how Sara included a quote from Cynthia Gale who is an author in the paper, who says, “Analysts need to be aware that this can happen, and they need to be able to go into court and effectively present this evidence.” This shows how not all evidence is perfect and the flaws must be taken into consideration when solving a crime. I like how this article leaves room for thought as to what new inventions or technology could possibly be used to solve the problem of touch DNA.
I think that to improve this article, it could have added other experiments used to prove that touch DNA is contaminating evidence other than just by a handshake. This will give us more information relating to touch DNA and the way it works. I also think, relating to my first point, that the article could have given a specific number of trials that the scientists have done to prove that 85 % of the “weapons” had DNA of people who had never touched the weapon just because they were in contact with the person who actually touched the weapon.
Overall, this article was interesting and just shows how we can still improve and the way that no evidence is perfect. It shows how DNA, something commonly used to link a suspect, can be contaminated and that the problem needs to be resolved.
I think that Sara did a great job in summarizing the main points of the article. She did a good job in explaining how DNA testing shouldn’t be depended on because there can be cross transfer as we learned in class recently. She also did a good job by putting in a quote to help explain her argument. The review was straightforward and easy to understand.
One thing she could have improved was to give more examples on how DNA testing can not always be reliable. She also could have talked about how to prevent the cross transfer contamination from happening when examining the physical evidence.
Before reading this review I thought that DNA testing could be relied on, but now I know that DNA testing sometimes isn’t as useful as we want it to be. Overall, the review was interesting and done well.
http://www.forensicmag.com/articles/2015/10/touch-dna-might-be-contaminating-crime-scene-evidence
Augenstein, Seth. "Touch DNA Might Be Contaminating Crime Scene Evidence." Forensic
Magazine. N.p., 29 Oct. 2015. Web. 05 Nov. 2015.
http://www.forensicmag.com/articles/2015/10/touch-dna-might-be-contaminating-crime-scene-evidence
Augenstein, Seth. "Touch DNA Might Be Contaminating Crime Scene Evidence." Forensic
Magazine. N.p., 29 Oct. 2015. Web. 05 Nov. 2015.
Sara did a spectacular job summarizing the article concisely as she can. She explained in detail how DNA testing shouldn’t be depended on because there can be cross-transference and how the experiment may sometimes lead forensics scientists on the wrong direction. She integrated the quotes from the article well, which made her review a compelling piece. The overall review was coherent in explaining the research and its concepts.
Although her review was thorough, I wish she had reinforced the fact that many cautions must be taken when handling evidence. I also think that the review could have given a specific number of trials that the scientists have gone through to prove that 85 % of the “weapons” had DNA of people who had never touched the weapon just because they were in contact with the person who actually touched the weapon. I would have liked to see more emphasis on the cruciality of handling physical evidence with care was seen in the review.
I always thought that DNA testing could be relied on but now I know that DNA testing sometimes isn’t as reliable as we think it is since cross-contamination does often occur. The article made me aware that there are still many parts this field must improve on but these daily discoveries and developments are helping the society to become safer.
This review did a good job at presenting a topic that many people probably would not think is an issue considering our society’s advancements in technology. Technology has improved so much that we assume machines have the ability to overcome obstacles such as those brought by “touch DNA.” The review also identified what problems “touch DNA” can potentially create such as, falsely proving someone guilty of a crime. The overall explanation of the subjects brought up in the review were well organized and relatively easy to follow with a good understanding.
The review could have done a better job at giving a more clear example to how “touch DNA” has falsely convicted a person of a crime. The examples that the review gave were somewhat scattered and there was not enough background to the story to understand it. Also, the review could have presented what scientists are doing to fix the issues that “touch DNA” surfaces and how they hope to do so.
I was shocked to read that “touch DNA” is a occurring problem today because of all the technology we have that can do such advanced work that is similar to solving the problems of “touch DNA.” We seem to have machines that do virtually everything and more than humans can so I am very shocked that there has been no technological advancements to solve a problem such as the one brought to our attention in the review.
Sara did a great job summarizing the article. She did a very good job explaining how DNA testing should not be determined by cross transference. As well as how some experiments give the forensic scientists the wrong information. I really enjoyed how she used quotes throughout her review. He detailed explanations and use of quotes really made the review very interesting.
I do wish however, that she mentioned how cautious scientists have to be with the evidence. As well as going into depth on the cases where the weapon actually was never in the hands of the person that it was matched with. Finally I also would have liked her to talk more emphatically about how crucial the step of handling the evidence is to the testing.
I found this review extremely interesting because I always thought that DNA testing was extremely reliable. The article made me see that there are still many flaws in the tests and that nothing is 100% fact and there could always be a bit of doubt.
Sara did a great job of creating a concise summary that successfully summed up the majority of the passage while displaying its significance to society today. She made sure to display the fact that DNA is an accurate way of identifying people, but showed that it can lead investigators to draw false conclusions due to touch DNA contamination. She also did a good job of explaining how this touch DNA can wind up at a crime scene. The example with the paramedics was especially interesting and relevant; this example was a good way to summarize the problem that the article introduces.
She could, however, have improved the summary by talking about a possible solution. This would be extremely helpful in understanding that there is a way around this problem. Also referred to Cale as simply an author on the paper. She is a researcher on this topic and had conducted studies. I think this gives the entire argument more credibility and shows that the author really knows what she is talking about.
I think this article was very interesting. It is based off of the same topic that I did my current event review on. It is really shocking to find out that people can be wrongfully imprisoned because of this touch DNA leading to misinterpreted evidence. The findings make you wonder just how many people are currently in prison that are there because of this touch DNA inaccuracy.
In Sara’s review of the article, “Touch DNA Might Be Contaminating Crime Scene Evidence,” I was able to understand what Touch DNA was and how it could be affecting the outcome of crime investigations. Sara went into detail on how a person’s DNA could end up at a crime scene even if they had no correlation to the event. As said by Sara, this is due to touch DNA, which is when someone or something comes in even the slightest contact with someone who would be handling the crime scene. I felt that Sarah presented the fact that this study of Touch DNA could really change the reliability of DNA testing in criminal investigations. It is known that DNA can help solve cases, but the forensic examiners need to be able to explain all the DNA that is collected in forensic evidence. Another well presented point was how this issue could cause an innocent person to be put in jail while the real perpetrator is free. One improvement that could be made to this review is the possible ways in which this issue could be solved were discussed. To be more specific, how could one put a stop to Touch DNA contaminating a crime scene and is that even possible. One other suggestion that could improve the review is if the Sarah brought up how forensic examiners are handling touch DNA now during investigations and what data do they have that proves the actual damage being done by this contamination issue. Overall, I was very impressed by how well Sara was able to develop this review due to the limited amount of information given in the article. I liked how Sarah perfectly established what this article was about and what could be improved.
Sara, I really enjoyed reading your review of the article “Touch DNA Might Be Contaminating Crime Scene Evidence.” There were a few things that stood out. One, was your summary. Your summary was concise enough so that it made sense, but not too long that it became boring. Two, I liked how you added a quote. This added to the strength of your review. Three, I liked how you explained what problems touch DNA can potentially cause. Many people might not realize these problems could happen, so it’s nice you added them in. Although your review was great, there are a few things you could do to make it better. One, maybe you could have given an example of how touch DNA has actually contaminated crime scene evidence. Two, you could have mentioned ways to prevent this contamination. One thing I learned from your review is that DNA testing isn’t always reliable. I thought authorities could determine the person without doubt from DNA testing, but I guess I’m wrong. Again, I really enjoyed reading your review.
http://www.forensicmag.com/articles/2015/10/touch-dna-might-be-contaminating-crime-scene-evidence
Augenstein, Seth. "Touch DNA Might Be Contaminating Crime Scene Evidence." Forensic
Magazine. N.p., 29 Oct. 2015. Web. 05 Nov. 2015.
I thought that Sara did a great job at reviewing this article. Specifically, I thought that the Sara got the main idea across without making the review too long or too short. I thought that Sara did a good job of including factual scientific information about the article, since this is a review on a scientific article. I also thought that Sara did a good job at making this article easy to read and interesting, I did not find myself losing interest in the subject while I was reading the article. If I could change the article, I would have added a little bit more about how touch DNA contaminated the crime scene. I would also have included ways to prevent contamination. I learned that DNA testing can actually be unreliable, This is interesting to me because I thought that any DNA evidence found would be immediately admissable in court.
Yet again, Sara Conway chooses an intriguing and riveting topic; this time it is about Touch DNA. In her summary paragraph, she uses an experiment, a “two minute handshake”, in order to explain the concept. The vivid yet clear description allows the reader a better understanding of the case and provides a solid backdrop for her article. As always, the analysis is short and sweet while never missing the point: DNA is not a pure source of evidence. However, perhaps the most impressive piece of the current event was the critique paragraph. Comprehensive yet concise, Conway shows off a critical eye as she suggests improvements on what the writer of the article could do better while understanding the context the article was written in. For instance, she acknowledges the article’s foundations in primarily quotes, which provide an expert’s opinion but not much else. Her insights allow for better writing on these articles to come.
In spite of this, Conway could elaborate more on the cases where people have been wrongly accused. What happens if some people merely claim to be wrongly accused? Although,a margin of error should be allowed for most cases, one must understand that Touch DNA now, in fact, complicates cases further by having to determine the perpetrator from the variety of DNA found on the evidence, merely because of contact between the perpetrator and other people he or she had touched recently. As a result, Sara Conway brings up many important issues; yet, it would be even better if she provided suggestions. Nonetheless, the newfound issue that is capable of sending an entire forensic discipline into turmoil (forensic serology) might have questions whose answers are beyond even students at Bronxville.
Overall, the choice and use of article was quite impressive and interesting, but the mere topic was eye-catching. Such controversial and “hot”, so to speak, news guarantees reviewers like how moths are drawn to light. On another hand, it is preferable to state that Conway dealt with the subject efficiently and properly. Thanks to this current event review, the approach to DNA profiling becomes even more cautious and vigilant.
Post a Comment