Southside Strangler Case Study

This paper examines Carrell et al’s research along with three other scholarly research articles to better understand the effects that the DNA recovered from a crime scene has on a particular case and the forensic science community.

Nowadays, DNA is a crucial component of a crime scene investigation, used to both to identify perpetrators from crime scenes and to determine a suspect’s guilt or innocence (Butler, 2005). The method of constructing a distinctive “fingerprint” from an individual’s DNA was first described by Alec Jeffreys in 1985. He discovered regions of repetitions of nucleotides inherent in DNA strands that differed from person to person (now known as variable number of tandem repeats, or VNTRs), and developed a technique to adjust the length variation into a definitive identity marker (Butler, 2005). Since then, DNA fingerprinting has been refined to be an indispensible source of evidence, expanded into multiple methods befitting different types of DNA

Many people continue to languish in jails all over the word while others have since faced capital punishment as a result of wrongful convictions. It is from this premise that innovation through DNA analysis has come to provide the much needed relief in correcting these errors. While there are many factors related to wrongful convictions, miscarriage of justice stands as the main culprit with many of these cases being faced with lack of conclusive or efficient investigations. There are several factors that come out as the main factors in contributing to miscarriage of justice such as false confessions, eyewitness misidentification, outdated evidence collection methods, snitches, incompetent lawyers and government misconduct among others.

DNA testing was first used in criminal prosecutions in 1985 and is now admissible in all states. (Hails, 184) Scientific and legal communities seem to universally accept the use of DNA as “good” evidence. Questions could arise regarding testing procedures. There are several testing methods that have been proven reliable and easily pass general acceptance and scientific validity tests. This is causes number of Daubert cases questioning DNA to decline. “In most cases, the tests that are used are well established and do not require a separate hearing” (Hails, 160)

Beginning in the mid-1980s, the development of DNA analysis technology has revolutionised the field of forensic science within the criminal justice system. As the refinement of procedures and technology continues, even minute samples of biological material (including blood, saliva, semen and skin cells) are able to be analysed and used to link or acquit perpetrators of crimes. (Whitney, R n.d.)

DNA testing is a critical and accurate tool in linking accused and even convicted criminals for crimes, and should be widely used to assess guilt or innocence before jail sentences are imposed. It was started up by scientists Francis C. Crick and James D, Watson in 1953 as they had described the uses, structures and purpose of the DNA “deoxyribonucleic acid” genetic fingerprint that contains organism information about an individual (testing

Basically, our DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid) is our genes, and every person, except for twins, are born with a different DNA profile and that is in a giant database, containing every DNA profile of every person in the world. DNA testing started in 1985 by scientist Alec Jeffreys and was first used to solve a crime a year later. Before 1985 DNA evidence could not be used in court because it wasn’t invented yet, this increased the number of wrongful convictions which would have been prevented using DNA analysis. However, DNA analysis can still be used to solve crimes that occurred prior to the invention of DNA analysis, with a sufficient amount of DNA to be analyzed of course, which is a very small amount. Only a small amount of DNA is needed to find out who it belongs to, it can be found in blood, saliva, finger residue, hair, skin, semen and more.

Due to the uniqueness of DNA it has become a powerful tool in criminal investigations

False confessions have been a leading factor in destroying the lives of many innocent people. Since the advances of technology, victims of false confessions have been exonerated from the charges previously placed on them while others are still fighting for innocence or died a criminal. One technological advance that has exonerated many individuals is DNA testing. According to Randy James, DNA testing was discovered in 1985 and was first used in court to convict Tommie Lee Andrews (Time, 2009). Today many Americans are convicted because of false confessions that have not yet been overturned with new evidence (Kassin, 2014). Although DNA testing has led to freedom for many innocent Americans, there are still many innocent people who are locked

DNA’s certainty is dramatized in today’s society, which gives lay people the impression that DNA is infallible; however, in the case of Wayne Butler and others, the fallibility of DNA is exposed. Wayne Butler was accused of sadistically murdering Natasha Douty who was found beaten to death on Brampton Island in 1983. Wayne Butler was vacationing on Brampton Island during the timeframe of the murder; however, claimed to be jogging during this time. After submitting a blood test, Butler was eliminated as a suspect. However, Butler was arrested in 2001 for this murder because semen, which was found on the towel at the crime scene, was found to be a match. The John Tonge Centre performed a DNA test on the evidence on the towel. Butler was found innocent after it was identified that the John Tonge Centre mislabeled the test tubes containing the crime scene evidence. (“DNA Evidence”) This case proves that DNA testing may not be as reliable as we think.

Before the 1980s, courts relied on testimony and eyewitness accounts as a main source of evidence. Notoriously unreliable, these techniques have since faded away to the stunning reliability of DNA forensics. In 1984, British geneticist Alec Jeffreys of the University of Leicester discovered an interesting new marker in the human genome. Most DNA information is the same in every human, but the junk code between genes is unique to every person. Junk DNA used for investigative purposes can be found in blood, saliva, perspiration, sexual fluid, skin tissue, bone marrow, dental pulp, and hair follicles (Butler, 2011). By analyzing this junk code, Jeffreys found certain sequences of 10 to 100 base pairs repeated multiple times. These tandem

DNA is considered an individuals genetic fingerprint, thus it is exclusive to each and every individual. Since this exclusivity exists, DNA is a tool used for identification purposes. It has been utilized for investigations of serious crimes, identification of individuals killed in mass disasters, wars and paternity uncertainties1. Since the inception of the use of DNA in the 1980’s thousands of criminals have been caught and prosecuted with the help of DNA evidence2. Additionally, countless victims of mass disasters have been identified through DNA and returned to their loved ones. Although, there are various benefits to employing DNA it does not come without a sundry of ethical and legal concerns. The ethical concerns that have presented themselves are questions involving scientific reliability, DNA evidence in court, human rights, and finally the other uses of the DNA database.

DNA profiling technologies have had a considerable impact on how forensic science and criminal investigation have been understood, carried out, and regulated in the last 25 years. Current methods of forensic DNA profiling (known also as DNA fingerprinting and DNA typing), based on Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) amplifications of a varying number of Short Tandem Repeat (STR) loci found at different locations on the human genome, are regularly described as constituting the “gold standard for identification” in contemporary society. Prior to the implementation of PCR based extraction and amplification methods in the 1990’s, the initial uses of DNA fingerprinting (based on Multiple and Single Locus Probes) were largely confined to reactive

Law Enforcement keep notes on arrests that have founded people innocent of crimes, and retention of an innocent person's DNA can be charge or otherwise, seen as a invasion of that person’s privacy and civil liberties. Dr. Alec Jeffrey, a former professor at the University of Leicester laboratory, consulted with his lawyers to develop the new type of technique called DNA profiling. His technique would prove that DNA fingerprinting (profiling) can individualize evidence compared to the blood typing. DNA profiling compares 13 standard STRs to form a profile. The analysis used by the scientists, uses PCR and STRs to profile an individual. It is highly unlike that two individuals’ identical numbers of repeats for all 13 STRs, will match, which DNA fails is hardly never due to a successful match of 385 million to 1. This makes DNA profiling the most accurate tool in Forensics.

DNA fingerprinting is a scientific technology involving the extraction, replication and arrangement of strands of an organism’s DNA. This results in the formation of a genetically distinctive fingerprint that is unique to the organism which the DNA sample was originally extracted from. Because of the specificity of a DNA fingerprint, the application of this technology can have a substantial influence on many aspects of society. Accessibility to a DNA database allows for higher efficiency in forensic investigations, personal identification, maternal and paternal testing. The availability of a national database to police officers and forensic scientists would equate to increased productivity in investigations and prosecution of suspects in a