‘DNA Fingerprinting’ video clip. Select ‘DNA Fingerprinting 2’

Please watch ‘DNA Fingerprinting’ video clip. Select ‘DNA Fingerprinting 2’ https://www.dropbox.com/s/x3u6j5cjova9mz1/video%20to%20watch%20.zip?dl=0 andWrite a short essay (200 – 500 words, approx. 1 page.) discussing the value of DNA evidence vswitness testimony regarding to these two cases shown in the video?

• Discussion points should include: 

• First paragraph, as a member of a jury, which would you consider being more reliable and why? 
(please provide and argument to support your believ)

e.gAs a member of a jury, I think DNA evidence is more reliable because ……………get evidence why do you think that , find scientific evidence of what you think. Please look at this web https://www.innocenceproject.organd find statistical evidence in how many cases solved by DNA evidence and how many people lied in some cases as stand or witness has been interviewed , what are the error rate are got both side DNA evidence and witness testimony.

• Second paragraph, what are the possible sources of error that must be considered?

e.gDna evidence is 99% accurate whereas witness may lie (need scientific evidence and references) and explain how may the DNA avoidance could be wrong

• Conclusion paragraph, Do you think your answer to these questions would change if you were not studying 
science?

I believe …….

• Use references to validate your point of view, where appropriate, and present consistently in a formal scientific style (you can use the Hanratty / Bloodsworth cases, links to websites, online articles, and/or anything else you find. 1 or 2 references should be enough to provide justification for your argument)

 Brief synopsis:

First case:

• James Hanratty was convicted of murder and put to death in 1962
• Public rigorously protested and pursued an appeal for more than 30 years
• DNA testing proved that Hanratty was the murderer in 2002.

Second case:

• Kirk Bloodsworth was convicted of murder and sentenced to death in 1985
• DNA evidence from the scene did not match Bloodsworth’s DNA and he was released 
in 1993 (but not exonerated)
• DNA evidence found the real killer in 2002 and Bloodsworth was exonerated.

(Important notes to consider)

Regarding the first case (James Hanratty case):

1. DNA evidence was used to re-prove that Hanratty was the murderer. Could it be possible that Hanratty was not the murderer?

It is unlikely that Hanratty was not the murderer as the DNA fingerprinting results from the victim clothes matched his DNA profile, which was stated by PCR techniques. The DNA evidence showed male DNA profile and that is tell us that the DNA profile mean the Hanratty was at the crime location but it does not prove that he was the murder. The DNA evidence tells us that he lied to us as he said that he was 250 miles away from the crime location. Where the DNA evidence tells us that he was there.

2. What techniques were used to isolate and analyse the DNA?

PCR

3. How can you explain the testimony of multiple witnesses?

They might have seen someone who look like him or they want to sympathise with him.

Also, it is possible that he did the crime and left to somewhere else fast and quick.

Maybe he was part of the community. How reliable child testimony, would you trust an adult who is under pressure, or someone drunk or a child.

Regarding the second case (The exoneration of Kirk Bloodsworth):

1. DNA Evidence was used to prove that Bloodsworth was not the murderer. Could Bloodsworth still in fact be the murderer?

Unless he was an expert criminal and knew how not to leave any piece of his DNA behind, it is most likely not possible. The court stated that he was not guilty but does not mean he is innocent

2. Kirk Bloodsworth did not feel vindicated until the actual killer was convicted. How compelling was the DNA evidence that exonerated him? Why wasn’t the real killer found earlier?

The DNA results complelled that he is not guilty ,Before getting the sample of DNA it was hard to find the real killer as it could be anyone especially with the two boys description.

3. Based on the evidence presented to you in this short video clip, who had the most convincing circumstantial evidence that lead to their conviction – James Hanratty or Kirk Bloodsworth?

James Hanratty because the DNA evidence was found which is more accurate than than the witness testimony.

This is an example of how it should be but it is not perfect example the structure of this sample is not good:

DNA Evidence Worksheet

DNA fingerprinting revolutionise the world of crime investigation. The discovery of PCR allows billions of copies of a DNA to be made from a small sample making the use of DNA evidence more efficient. On the other hand, the witness testimony can play a big rule in the courtroom especially if the witness described the crime and the criminal in details. As a member of a jury, I would consider the DNA evidence more reliable because DNA can be conserved for a long time helping with the cold cases and the similarity rate of the DNA samples for two individuals is very small (BBC, 2010). Although it is possible to create an artificial DNA sample and contaminate the original DNA with it leading to an error with the DNA analysis results, some methods are developed to authenticate the sample of DNA is natural increasing the reliability of DNA sampling as an evidence (Frumkin et al., 2010). To support the case of relying on the DNA evidence as the better source of evidence, two separate cases in different places and different era were proved by the use of DNA fingerprinting. The first case is James Hanratty convicted of rape and murder and sentenced to death, after appealing for thirty years trying to clear his name, a DNA sample from the raped victim cloth assured his crime (BBC, 2010). On the other hand, Kirk Bloodsworth convicted of rape and murder found innocent after analysing a small semen sample was found on the victim’s clothes (BBC, 2010). Even though being a student in a field of science might affect the answer, it is most likely that I would consider using the DNA evidence as a reliable source of evidence even if I was not studying science as the error of witness testimony is more than the error of DNA samples. To conclude, DNA evidence is more reliable than the witness testimony.