{Some facts about DNA testing and Medical examination (these points may become important during the argument in the court) I have observed a lot of discussion on these issues and will try to clear our understanding. 1. DNA is obtained from hair root only and not from the shaft of hair. Shaft does not contain DNA. Secondly hair can be identified as pubic hair or scalp hair, beard etc. Scalp hair cannot come into underclothing of victim. Hence arguments such as victim could have obtained culprits hair from saloon/from other source and inserted into underclothing are not good points.(scalp hair is straight and long, pubic hair is curly and short, beard hair is brittle, etc) 2. Regarding absence of victims own DNA in reports: DNA analysis typically looks for Nuclear DNA and not touch DNA . Nuclear DNA is obtained from seminal stain from a piece of cloth cut off from clothing, or from hair root. Victims DNA is typically in small quantity especially so if she had worn the clothing for short period of time, and being from shed dead skin cells, the DNA could be fragmented, and forensic analysis may not process this disintegrated DNA unless specified to do so. While seminal stain DNA is easily detected forensically. Hence the argument that since there is no victims DNA is not significant, but presence of culprits DNA is very important. The entire analysis method for identifying seminal stain DNA or Hair root DNA is different from analysis of touch DNA of culprit in her own clothings) 3. Regarding two DNA types identified, again is not significant. Presence of culprits DNA only is relevant, what is the source of other DNA is nobodies business in this case so far. Forensic examination will match such second DNA only if requested and if there is a reason to do so. 4. Argument such as Victim inserting culprits DNA from assailants toothbrush, his underclothing are remote possibilities as the quantity is too small, and it is degraded, denatured, fragmented and cannot be of any use in matching. Again such DNA is touch DNA and are to be analyzed by separate technique. Being a medical man, I have focused my views only in medical issues, I will try to clear any doubts if any one is interested. In my view there is enough evidence in this case for the trial. Also please correct me if I have made any wrong observations. A havyaka doctor. }
Posted on: Tue, 16 Dec 2014 06:55:01 +0000