A close up view shows a 3D animation of a mitochondria, a tiny symbiotic helper that lives inside human cells. DNA from mitochondria has been used since the mid 1990s in certain criminal cases.
"You've got the wrong man! I'm innocent!"
Many perfectly guilty criminals insist that, but what if it was true? That indeed could be true in some cases, as a new revelation casts doubt on certain verdicts in the U.S. Justice system delivered since the mid-1990s. It stems from an important finding made by a team co-led by Nickolas Papadopoulos, a Johns Hopkins University geneticist. The team discovered that DNA from tiny symbiotic bacterial-descendants called mitochondria that live in our cells and give them energy varies from tissue to tissue in the human body.
The finding is significant as mitochondrial DNA analysis was considered a proven enough technique that U.S. law enforcement has been using it as a tool to identify criminals since the mid-1990s. Mitochondrial DNA analysis was often used in the cases where the human DNA was too damaged for accurate processing (there's numerous mitochondria in a cell, so there's a better chance of accurately processing it).
The new results, set to be published today in the Mar. 4 edition of the prestigious journal Nature, indicates that possibility of false negatives might be much higher than previously thought. Also, the chance of two people having the same mitochondrial DNA goes up as well.
As Dr. Papadopoulos comments, "I wouldn't say that it throws other results out the window, but it does throw a curve ball."
The new study used cutting edge gene sequencing equipment to analyze mitochondrial DNA from nine tissue types in two people. It found a great deal of variety of mitochondrial DNA in various tissues, much more variation than was previously thought to exist. For example, they found one DNA sequence was found in 7 percent of a person's skeletal-muscle mitochondria, but 90 percent of their kidney mitochondria.
Dr. Papadopoulos describes, "It's more than was thought, and was present in almost every tissue we looked at."
In order to get proper results, the study indicates, law enforcement would have to collect mitochondrial DNA from multiple regions in the suspect or victim's body.
Some aren't convinced that the results are accurate. John Planz, associate director of the DNA Identity Laboratory at the University of North Texas Health Science Center says that past studies which indicated the same thing turned out to be the result of measurement errors.
Still, if the results are validated it could lead to a major shakeup in the field of forensics, including criminal forensics. It could even lead to some appeals in the near future. And it's not the only storm brewing for DNA evidence on the horizon; other studies have also cast doubts on the validity of using DNA evidence in court (among other things, anyone who has taken an intro biochemistry or molecular biology course should be able to recognize that it would be relatively elementary for a criminal to plant DNA evidence, such as hair or dandruff, from someone they lived in close quarters with, on a victim).
Dna testing claims of infaliability are just that, claims. This is all testing handled by people, interpreted by people, and who works the statistics? People. Now anyone knows there is a lot of money in this market, especially since the judicial system gave them a contract. The judicial system is supposed to act as the "gatekeepers" of evidence submitted to the courts, so the rights of the people are not trampled on. But since they abandoned their job to do this, all dna "experts" have to do now is largely show up. If you don't have the money for good lawyers and your own "expert" your screwed. Justice is now up for sale. And paternity testing is just a joke. I have recently had alec jefferys, the "father of dna testing" tell me that looks don't actually count". You can be black, and still have white children, nothing wrong there. It seems to me that this is an industry desperately trying to disprove what common sense and our own eyesight will gleefully tell you. CHildren tend largely to resemble their parents. There may be the odd mutation, but it is not common. Statistics can be made to say whatever they want it to, and there are no regulators in this industry to protect the public from fraud error or outright lies. No way to verify the standards the labs claim. In one case the defense sought to have their own "expert" observe the work in cellmarks labs, since that was legally allowed in that state, the lab switched states so they could avoid getting caught. Labcorp and cellmark are now set to merge. Even more problems as the evidence of any problems will just "disappear". There are supposed to be known error rates in the testing for court admissability, try to get the file released so you can review the work they claim to have done. It will be claimed as theirs alone, destroyed, or protected by one piece of legislation or another. The courts allow this as they don't want to look like the idiots they are for failing so miserably in letting this stuff into court without guidelines. Most judges cannot read the reports except for the line at the bottom that says included or excluded, and there are no actual clinical trial studies to prove the error rates they claim Jason Guilder, a genetic professor in the USA stated to me that there are only one or two simulated studies, no actual ones, but he adamently defended that. Katryn Troyers studies out of arizona suggest a rate of matching that is nowhere near the almost never matches unless it is you theory the labs spin for you. The FBI are trying desperately to shut that down Start digging, you would be suprised at the lab techs who have been caught deliberately falsifying data, cellmark has had a real problem with this. So, has labcorp. So have almost all the others. Try to get the information. They are private companies. Why should we the public have to defend ourselves against this, when we don't even have a level playing field. SHow us the work you did, show us the clinical trials you did to support your accuracy claims, not simulated ones, real ones. and what court in the world should have let it come to this. Proof of everything said here is out there on the web, and by asking a few questions. The sarcasm and ridicule the dna industry lashes out with to discredit this information is all they have to try to avoid becoming obsolete. So ignore that. Good luck.