Twins' DNA Foils Police 209
Hugh Pickens writes "The Telegraph reports that James and John Parr were both arrested after watches worth £10,000 were stolen from a shopping center. Police found blood on a piece of glass at the scene of the crime and traced it back to the 25-year-old identical twins through DNA tests. But James and John both denied the theft and, because they have identical DNA, it has been impossible to prove beyond a reasonable doubt which twin is responsible. 'The police told us that they knew it was one of us, but we both denied it,' says James. 'I definitely know I didn't do anything wrong. I was watching my daughter that night.' Now the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) has concluded that it cannot prove beyond reasonable doubt who was responsible. 'Unless further evidence becomes available, we are unable to authorize any charge at this time,' says CPS spokesman Rob Pett. 'This is certainly not something that we regularly encounter.' Identical twins have hindered police investigations a number of times since the advent of DNA testing. In Malaysia last year, a man suspected of drug-smuggling and sentenced to death was released when the court could not prove whether it was he or his twin brother who committed the crime."
Re:That's not the real problem here (Score:3, Informative)
If I recall correctly, death sentences for drug smuggling are pretty common in the region.
It's actually worse than that (Score:5, Informative)
DNA has been getting relied on heavily lately to solve otherwise cold cases. States have started running crime scene evidence through DNA databases wholesale, and then running with whatever match they get, even if it's just a partial.
Think about it: if there's a one in a million chance that the DNA will match, and you have a 20 million person database, then you're going to get 20 matches. Now just find the guy who's most convenient to prosecute. Boom, instant cold case conversion!
DNA's Dirty Little Secret: a forensic tool renowned for exonerating the innocent may actually be putting them in prison
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2010/1003.bobelian.html [washingtonmonthly.com]
Also:
New Rule Allows Use of Partial DNA Matches
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/25/nyregion/25dna.html [nytimes.com]
DNA Evidence Can Be Fabricated, Scientists Show
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/18/science/18dna.html [nytimes.com]
Re:Um, this is easy (Score:3, Informative)
You fail at reading comprehension. That was his whole point.
Re:Or maybe the police could do their jobs! (Score:3, Informative)
Errr, no. I'm not British, but I've followed a number of stories regarding video surveillance of British citizens. GP may have exaggerated a little when he said "every street corner" - but not by much. The Brits are obssessed with observing every interaction between every pair of people in their country. If they aren't "Orwellian" yet, they will be within a couple years.
One story about surveillance mentioned that CPS and/or the schools were considering putting cameras within the homes of "children at risk", or some such nonsense. They were specifically considering kids living in their equivelant of "The Projects". Ghetto housing. They want to make sure the kid is home, and going to bed on time, and that he spent x number of hours doing homework. Good grief!
Re:Or maybe the police could do their jobs! (Score:4, Informative)
This is the UK we're talking about. They have a camera on every street corner.
Since when? If it was outside the central business district of a major city, the chances are there wasn't a CCTV camera within a couple of miles radius.
The whole "Britain has elventy bajillion CCTV cameras" was a story *entirely made up* by a right-wing tabloid. The figure was derived by counting up all the council- and privately-owned CCTV cameras in a half-mile stretch of the main street of a particularly nasty area of London, and multiplying by the total length of all the roads in Britain. For it to be even *nearly* right, there would have to be a camera every 50 metres or so along *every* road. The track to my house would have three cameras all to itself...
You joke but... (Score:3, Informative)
I know you're joking, but ....
As it turns out they were actually triplets when they were born.
In fact finding a "hidden" 3rd person with the same profile isn't that much impossible.
Given the small amount of tested loci finding a perfect match doesn't even require a true twin brother or triplet, but could also be someone different, who just had the bad luck to have the same DNA only on the dozen of tested loci (and could have different DNA elsewhere).
The wikipedia entry about DNA profiling [wikipedia.org] mentions a case of a "perfect" random match of 13 loci among 30'000 persons.
In short : DNA profiling is a nice tool to have, when the police have a short group of suspect and wants to know who is the one who might have done it. But if you have no idea and are just hitting a database to give you auto-magically the guilty criminal, there's an even increasing chance (as DNA databases are growing bigger) , that the request might return 1 or 2 people who have nothing to do with the case and just happened to share the same loci.
The FBI doesn't want you to know (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Obvious Solution (Score:3, Informative)
The same basic right exists in the UK, they call it the right to silence, or the right to remain silent, and it comes from the Judges' Rules, and pertains to rights of the defendant to not testify, and rights to not cooperate with police.
Arguably, potential criminals may have better rights there than in the US, in certain areas.
The 5th amendment of the US constitution is based on it.
But see the Police and Criminal Evidence Act of 1984 [wikipedia.org], PACE Code C.