According to Forensic Science, “In April of 1953 Watson and Crick published a model of the DNA helix in a one page letter to Nature. It began with the now famous understatement: ‘We wish to suggest a structure for the salt of deoxyribose nucleic acid (D.N.A.). This structure has novel features which are of considerable biological interest’” (Laboratory. 2011). This is the very foundation that DNA was discovered. According to Forensic Magazine, “DNA profiling was originally developed as a method of determining paternity, in which samples taken under clinical conditions were examined for genetic evidence that could link parent to child” (Forensic Mag. 2005). This is possibly the most well-known form of DNA testing because it is highly publicized
…show more content…
This marks the first case in which DNA evidence is used to determine the identity of a murderer and it also solved a mass screen” (Laboratory. 2011). Not only was DNA used in this case to identify a murderer but, “this also marks the first case in which a prime suspect was exonerated due to DNA evidence” (Laboratory. 2011).
“In the first years following these groundbreaking cases, the admissibility of DNA evidence was not largely disputed. That began to change once the technique began to become more widely used by prosecutors” (Forensic Mag. 2005). Of course with every new development there is always going to be not only trial and error but many negative views of accepting “something new” into evidence that may convict an …show more content…
The odds of two people having the exact same DNA would be around 1 in 70trillion so the odds are extremely low. I have noticed that the laboratories have faced much scrutiny in the development of DNA used in criminal investigations, but the testing and procedures have evolved since it was first used. Everything that’s new to any field is going to face some scrutiny from some if not most people that are unfamiliar but I am glad that Law Enforcement, when facing diversity, decided to continue to make the necessary adjustments in order to use DNA in
This marks the first case in which DNA evidence is used to determine the identity of a murderer and it also solved a mass screen” (Laboratory. 2011). Not only was DNA used in this case to identify a murderer but, “this also marks the first case in which a prime suspect was exonerated due to DNA evidence” (Laboratory. 2011).
“In the first years following these groundbreaking cases, the admissibility of DNA evidence was not largely disputed. That began to change once the technique began to become more widely used by prosecutors” (Forensic Mag. 2005). Of course with every new development there is always going to be not only trial and error but many negative views of accepting “something new” into evidence that may convict an …show more content…
The odds of two people having the exact same DNA would be around 1 in 70trillion so the odds are extremely low. I have noticed that the laboratories have faced much scrutiny in the development of DNA used in criminal investigations, but the testing and procedures have evolved since it was first used. Everything that’s new to any field is going to face some scrutiny from some if not most people that are unfamiliar but I am glad that Law Enforcement, when facing diversity, decided to continue to make the necessary adjustments in order to use DNA in