D.N.A. - Do Not Accept

by Graham Henderson

The new Criminal (In)Justice Act gives the police powers to take 
DNA samples. The outcome of this will be a U.K. wide DNA 
database.

The police will have powers to trawl through this database in a 
random search for suspects of crime. Michael Howard, at the Tory 
Party Conference last year, hailed the introduction of this DNA 
database saying that it would reduce crime and that anyone that 
had a DNA sample taken would "from that point on know that they 
were a marked man".

Don't be fooled by Tory lies or science, DNA will not be a solve 
all for crime.

Is Your DNA Sample Unique?

The biggest database of DNA to date is that of the F.B.I. in the 
USA. In this database there were three identical matches of DNA 
that could not be accounted for as errors or multiple entries 
from the same person. They were simply removed from the list. 
Research based on this new database was then published in 
influential science journals worldwide, stating that no multiple 
matches of DNA sample existed in the F.B.I. database and so DNA 
was unique to the individual. However as the F.B.I. files were 
fiddled with, it is clear that two people can have identical DNA.

Further proof of this came when samples were taken from small 
numbers of people from two isolated groups of tribal peoples 
thousands of miles apart. In this small scale study, identical 
DNA samples were taken from people in these two separate groups. 
Random matches between individuals do happen. Your DNA is 
therefore not necessarily unique to you.

Testing of DNA

The inventor of the DNA test, Sir Alec Jeffrey, says that the 
result of DNA testing is "guaranteed foolproof from a good 
quality sample". DNA is therefore not guaranteed foolproof if 
the people conducting the tests are not working from a good 
quality sample.

The tests are being conducted and copyrighted by private firms 
such as Cellmark Diagnostics, a subsidiary of I.C.I. In their 
promotional material they perpetuate the lie that their tests 
will "identify one human being with absolute certainty from all 
others". The reality was different when put into practice by the 
company.

In a blind testing to see how proficient Cellmark were, they made 
7 errors from 50 samples. This gave false positives, i.e. a match 
between two samples where none actually existed. The people 
running the test them met with Cellmark who were asked to look 
again at these samples basically giving them an opportunity to 
rewrite their answers.

Can we trust the firms, nevermind the technology, when conducting 
real tests which could lead to real criminal convictions?

A Real Case

After a rape in Largs in 1987, Cellmark were employed to do DNA 
tests on a suspect. On the strength of the information from the 
DNA test conducted by them, Brian Kelly was convicted and 
sentenced to six years in Barlinnie. This was inspite of the mass 
of other evidence, such as a reliable alibi, to show he was 
actually innocent. The "foolproof", "scientific" evidence was 
accepted at face value. Brian Kelly was released in 1993 after 
serving all of his sentence on the basis of DNA "evidence" alone. 
There are serious doubts as to whether the tests were conducted 
properly.

Whether due to laboratory error leading to cross-contamination of 
samples or human error of judgement, a person has served a six 
year sentence for a crime he did not commit. In Brian Kelly's 
words "DNA has wrecked my life totally".

Do Not Accept

We must campaign against DNA sampling. We must fight the lie that 
DNA is foolproof. Don't be blinded by science. Science does not 
equal truth.

