I talk with a DNA expert

[BBB167893]

I wouldn't mind if they tested the cord. That would be something.

 

[Chrishope]

Grainee Dhu, thank you, good post. (Your first post on this thread)

A couple quick points. For those who didn't bother reading Grainnee's post, DNA doesn't have markers, doesn't degrade, doesn't identify male/female, and needs only one cell for matching - just as my expert said.

The problem, as Grainee points out, is that the legal community uses DNA as a shorthand for Chromosomes. I asked my questions about DNA, therefore I got answers about DNA. If I'd asked about Chromosomes, I'd have got very different answers.

One could say my expert was too literal, but I think it was my fault for using the terminology that is used by the legal community. When you talk to experts, you have to keep in mind that the terminology means something very narrow and precise to them.

Any confusion that may have been created by this thread is due to my own ignorance. I should have been asking about chromosomes, but didn't know enough to know that's the terminology I should be using.

One last point, when I said my expert doesn't serve as a witness in court, I meant in criminal cases. She has testified in cases where the issues were strictly medical.

Grainnee, you seem to know quite a bit about this stuff. My we bounce questions off you?

I will continue to use DNA when posting here, as that is the terminology others are using, and it's what the legal community uses.

 

[Grainne Dhu]

Grainee Dhu, thank you, good post. (Your first post on this thread)

Thank you!

One could say my expert was too literal, but I think it was my fault for using the terminology that is used by the legal community. When you talk to experts, you have to keep in mind that the terminology means something very narrow and precise to them.

Yes, science and law sometimes seem like two different languages that happen to use the same words. Those words can mean very different things to a scientist than to a lawyer.

This was not a big deal 50 years ago when there was comparatively little real science being used in court. But real science is now important and I can't see any immediate future where it will not become more important in court.

The end result will be, I fear, more jurors with glazed over eyes as the scientific part of the evidence is explained in testimony.

Grainnee, you seem to know quite a bit about this stuff. My we bounce questions off you?

You can try but sometimes I'm kinda sticky after playing with my grandnephews!

Seriously, I'm not an expert but I am fascinated with physiology. The design of human and animal bodies is so elegant, so beautiful, I could (and sometimes do) spend all day reading about them.

If I don't know the answer, I just say so.

 

[Chrishope]

Thank you!



Yes, science and law sometimes seem like two different languages that happen to use the same words. Those words can mean very different things to a scientist than to a lawyer.

This was not a big deal 50 years ago when there was comparatively little real science being used in court. But real science is now important and I can't see any immediate future where it will not become more important in court.

The end result will be, I fear, more jurors with glazed over eyes as the scientific part of the evidence is explained in testimony.

Yes, I think it's going to be more important too. I think it may cause a change in the type of students law schools try to attract (though there will always be room for anyone who's got the tuition). Currently most lawyers don't have a strong science background (except patent lawyers).

 

[Mama2JML]

Some informative posts here. :bump:

 

[Mama2JML]

Bumping for andreww...

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/2008-07-09-jonbenet_N.htm




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk