Forensics in crisis. Crisis in court. 3/3.

Linda Geddes reports on the crisis in forensics. She looks at how DNA evidence has been subverted in the courtroom looking at the case of Amanda Knox; the case is still ongoing. The controversy stems around the collecting of the original DNA evidence. Geddes visits Dr Denise Syndercombe-court at a laboratory which analyses criminal samples. She explains how DNA is extracted. Ian Evett from Principle Forensics Services talks about applied probability theory used in court and the problem with mixed DNA samples found at a crime scene. Professor Peter Gill is concerned that DNA profiling is now so sensitive that small numbers of cells can be used. These minute samples can linger for a long time - sometimes years. Dr Ital Draw (?) studies subjectivity and bias; Geddes collaborated with him to test the objectivity of DNA testing in certain cases. David Bentley, QC, is concerned about false positives and the error rate. David Butler was also a victim of miscarriage; DNA samples were found to be contaminated in the case of Adam Scott accused of a rape. The validity of DNA evidence is called into question. Peter Gill, now at Oslo University, is concerned with the funding in forensics (covered in a previous programme). Streamlined Forensics Reports have been available for a while; Angela Gallop from Forensics Access comments. This was intended to be first line response for crime solving and succinct - not for courtroom evidence.