Will the OneWeb launch of 36 satellites on a Soyuz go ahead Wednesday this week?
18 publicly visible posts • joined 28 Oct 2009
Actually a lot of crime scene dna - 'touch dna' - is outside cells.
But no aspect of this is a trivial task.
You gotta wonder just what is going on at the NPIA. Just another bizarre manifestation of the process that has resulted in the closure of the Forensic Science Service?
Forensic labs already have a number of quick, cheap, accurate methods of detecting and quantifying DNA before DNA profiling.
Police forces can specify what they want from their suppliers. How about: "We'll give you a fiver to quant the sample. If insufficient DNA, please don't proceed to full profiling".
No, they'd rather be boy scientists.
Having calculated a likelihood ratio, the scientist in R -v-T translated that likelihood ratio into an “expression of support”, using a standard scale:
Likelihood ratio within range 1 to 10 = “Weak support”,
10-100 = “moderate support”
100 to 1000 = “moderately strong support”
1000 to 10,000 = “strong support”
10,000 to 1,000,000 = “very strong support”
>1,000,000 = “extremely stroing support”
The judgment has caused a minor panic amongst “police” forensic scientists because they have been calculating likelihood ratios and translating those likelihood ratios into expressions of support even in cases where there is no objective data on which to base calculations.
For example, a scientist might guesstimate that the probability of observing “lots of blood” on a defendant’s clothing (as opposed to “small amounts of blood”) given that defendant is the attacker as 0.75. The probability of observing this finding if he was not the attacker, but merely came to the aid of the victim after attack, might be guesstimated as 0.25.
The process will be applied to different - hopefully, but not always, - independent findings (eg. “lots of spattered blood”, “lots of blood on the cuffs”). A likelihood ratio is then calculated.
This LR is translated into a phrase using the table: “the scientific findings provide strong support for the view that Mr Defendant attacked Mr Victim rather than Mr Defendant having helped Mr Victim after the attack”.
The Court of Appeal judges criticised this process for its lack of transparency. Sometimes it's a scientifically rigorous approach that supports and documents an expert opinon. All too often it's pseudo-scientific claptrap.
Aware of the coming catastrophe, they venusiformed Earth. First they introduced simple archae, then more complex forms. Many perished in the Burgess shales.
Eventually, the oceans of Earth were fit for Venusians and the land for their hominid pets. We turned on them and hunted then down with exploding harpoons.