It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

DNA Evidence Can Be Fabricated, Scientists Show

page: 1
9

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 18 2009 @ 10:49 AM
link   

DNA Evidence Can Be Fabricated, Scientists Show


www.nytimes.com

Scientists in Israel have demonstrated that it is possible to fabricate DNA evidence, undermining the credibility of what has been considered the gold standard of proof in criminal cases.
The scientists fabricated blood and saliva samples containing DNA from a person other than the donor of the blood and saliva. They also showed that if they had access to a DNA profile in a database, they could construct a sample of DNA to match that profile without obtaining any tissue from that person.
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Aug, 18 2009 @ 10:49 AM
link   
The Article goes on to say , they can fabricate a crime scene, and can scavenge DNA from any source, Drinking cups, cigarettes .

This I am afraid is not an issue of when this will be in use, but what lies will be perpetrated and by who? This also goes to ask, when will DNA be irrelevant in criminal cases. I know if it was me, I would use this defense in a NY Minute

www.nytimes.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Aug, 18 2009 @ 10:58 AM
link   
Interesting side note is

"Nucleix’s test to tell if a sample has been fabricated relies on the fact that amplified DNA — which would be used in either deception — is not methylated, meaning it lacks certain molecules that are attached to the DNA at specific points, usually to inactivate genes."

So they seem to have a test, at least to tell if the DNA has been amplified. But I am sure depending on the amount of DNA needed, they would not have to amplify the DNA because they only do this to create more of it from a small sample.



posted on Aug, 18 2009 @ 11:05 AM
link   
reply to post by ShiftTrio
 


if they can creaate recoded DNA them i'm sure sticking in a few methane atoms won't be hard if they need to.



posted on Aug, 18 2009 @ 11:22 AM
link   
my first thought "revenge is sweet" why? Because this was accomplished in Israel the homeland of the Jews. How fitting for them after Hitler.

My second thought brings up a story where the first DNA evidence was used in a legal case in Nevada. I happen to meet a woman who was a stringer for a newspaper who had covered the trail. She was ultimately run out of Nevada by the Military rogues for some of her past reporting
on Area 51 where her husband at that time was a test pilot.

Perhaps someday I'll share more about the flying disks and mind control tactics employed by Area 51.



posted on Aug, 18 2009 @ 11:27 AM
link   
This is why Science is pushed everywhere any more. Because science can be manipulated to show whatever it is you want it to, so long as you know the tricks like a well-trained magician.

Scientists have an agenda, just like everyone else in other fields.



posted on Aug, 18 2009 @ 11:31 AM
link   
reply to post by orderedchaos
 


I have to say at least the information is coming out. What would be worse is if we only thought it existed. Certainly could lend credence to false flag operations blamed on others... Sorry had to throw that in there, as I am sure it was going to be brought up eventually. This is ATS =)



posted on Aug, 18 2009 @ 05:13 PM
link   
reply to post by ShiftTrio
 

Great find. I've always wondered if DNA evidence is trustworthy enough to be used to prosecute someone criminally. This needs to be shown to someone with the authority to rule that DNA is no longer admissible as evidence. If there's even the slightest possibility it's inaccurate, it shouldn't be allowed to be used in criminal proceedings.


TA



posted on Aug, 18 2009 @ 08:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheAssociate
reply to post by ShiftTrio
 

Great find. I've always wondered if DNA evidence is trustworthy enough to be used to prosecute someone criminally. This needs to be shown to someone with the authority to rule that DNA is no longer admissible as evidence. If there's even the slightest possibility it's inaccurate, it shouldn't be allowed to be used in criminal proceedings.


TA


Not only inaccurate, but it is not like the police have not been planting evidence in cases for years. Imagine the black mail that could happen. "Oh you don't want to pay, well this DNA here says you killed this hooker, Mr Brown "

*Edit For Spelling



[edit on 18-8-2009 by ShiftTrio]




top topics



 
9

log in

join