Twist on DNA Privacy

ConfusedVorlon writes "The BBC is reporting the conviction of a man for the murder of a prostitute 15 years ago. The interesting twist is that his DNA was not on record - 'But it partly match[ed] that of a youth's who was known to the police - but who had not been born at the time of the murder. The teenager, it turned out, was a close relative of [the murderor].' There has been concern in the past at the idea of keeping DNA of those interviewed but not charged with crimes. I haven't previously heard of the privacy implications of being related to a criminal/suspect. If you've done nothing wrong, you've nothing to fear?"

Comments

Strange.

[mikeophile]

A painstaking examination of the flat found a fresh DNA sample under layers of paint on a skirting board.

This was from a recent reinvestigation. How fresh can a 15 year old DNA sample be?

Bonjour France!

[Vagary]

I don't know how they do it in your human rights backwater, but in Canada* we use common law; ie: innocent until proven guilty. Thank god we have the government to protect mistakenly arrested citizens from monsters like you. Considering how much trouble the police had catching Briere in the first place, I'm not confident they'll be able to prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. After all, why release his picture and risk spoiling the jury pool if they already had all the evidence they need? * My Canada does not include Quebec.