Talk:R v Adams

Use of probabilistic methods will wither, because improvements in DNA manipulation should soon allow unique matching to a person (unless he or she has an identical twin). Samples from cases such as this should be preserved and re-tested as technology improves - AG, Stockport, UK.

AG - what could happen there is a prosecutor would make a claim such as 'there is a one in a trillion chance anyone has DNA matching this', but then there is always the chance the accused was born in a country that kept poor records and had was separated at birth from a twin. That might occur with a probability of one in 20,000 - there's every chance the 'twin' could end up in the same part of the world. I'm a bit aghast that someone could be convicted after being narrowed down to 6 people in the UK, but have evidence appearing to rule him out (evidence from the victim). I mean the DNA evidence alone makes the probability of innocence at least 2/3, not one in 2 million. Gomez2002 (talk) 09:26, 1 September 2016 (UTC)