Slashdot Mirror
Killer Convicted, Using Dog DNA Database
lee1 writes "It turns out that the UK has a DNA database — for dogs. And this database was recently used to apprehend a South London gang member who used his dog to catch a 16-year-old rival and hold him while he stabbed him to death. The dog was also accidentally stabbed, and left blood at the scene. The creation of human DNA databases has led to widespread debates on privacy; but what about the collation of DNA from dogs or other animals?"
New political insult:
"He couldn't get elected dog DNA sequencer in this county!"
In Dutch, there is an expression which is exactly suited for this situation:
"Dat is nu toch echt van den hond zijn ballen geschraapt."
The masturbating dog killer is on the loose again! He'll kill the owner but at least the dogs are happy. -- Forgetting Sarah Marshall. :)
"I know this... this is a unix system" -- Jurrasic Park
I can't think of anything more Orwellian than claiming that having some number of legs is better than some other number of legs.
Any time anyone collects detailed information about a person, his associations, or his possessions, there are privacy implications. That includes dog DNA databases, VIN databases (and tag number databases even more so), processor serial number databases, etc.
We're already so far down this slope, though, that nobody really notices it any more.
Who cares about your DNA when the DNA of something you own and use in a crime can be linked to you? Forget RFID; the illuminati need to ramp up production on bio tech so that everything is traceable like this. Then your tinfoil hats and body gloves will be useless.
I've read TFA (weird I know, I'm a new Anonymous Coward here ;) and they followed the blood trail from the crime scene to where the dog and its owner where. Then they took blood samples. No mention of any dog DNA database.
I understand British law is a bit different but in the US the blood would merely be circumstantial and wouldn't hold its own. While I do buy that it was part of the evidence that would warrant this guy as a prime suspect, there's no way you can convict on it alone. After all, the fact that the dog was stabbed could just as easily lead one to believe that this guy and his dog were actually trying to intervene in the kid being stabbed.
I'm not sure what article you read, but the paragraph immediately after the one about the trail of blood - yup - says "dog DNA database". If you look a little further down they say it again at least 2 more times.
On the whole, if you are trying to pursuade people that privacy is important, don't use examples like: "If you force me to have a license place on my car, then when I kill your child while I drunk drive for the 100th time, I can be caught and that would be a bad thing".
People might not be all that sympatethic.
Oh here is another one "I parked my car in front of a fire-hydrant and the firemen had to run around it, delaying them so you burned to death but they scrathed the paint, they should pay me for emotional trauma".
Learn to pick your cause. A guy who killed a child is NOT a cause for YRO. If you keep doing stuff like this, you only make yourself an easy target for ridicule.
Don't believe me? See how easily the deniers latched on to the "global warming" aspect of "global climate change" and then leap on any cold day as proof it is all a hoax.
Samething can happen to people who care about privacy "Oh look, another privacy nutter, who wants criminals to have free reign."
Show the voter why he should care about a dog DNA base. Frankly I doubt you can.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
It's a just a clueless journalist misusing the word database.
This BBC report doesn't mention the word at all. There is no central registry of dog DNA samples. It's just the first time that DNA matching, between a sample of blood found at the crime scene and a sample taken from the dog belonging to a suspect caught nearby has been used in a UK court.
http://www.jurablogs.com/de/wenn-ein-eichenblatt-den-moerder-ueberfuehrt (sorry, no English version, use Google Translation)
In 2004, a killer was convicted in Germany. The corpse of his wife had been found in a forest, buried beneath an oak tree. He claimed he was innocent and that had never even been in that area.
Unfortunately for him, a dried leaf of an oak tree was found in the trunk of his car - and DNA analysis proved it was from the very oak tree the corpse was buried under. Plants have DNA, too.
Oops.
My cats won't use the litter box until I turn my back to them.
I've seen at least one post asserting that there is no database. Based on the facts presented in the story, I can see why a scientific mind might be inclined to conclude this: no database would be necessary to do what was done in this case. I think that's at best inconclusive; let's take a closer look...
They wanted to link this guy to the crime scene. They already had him near the crmie scene. With limited identification from witnesses, that's at best only a start...
They had blood on him, and the relevant use of DNA technology was in showing that this blood matched the blood from the crime scene. They could tell there was both human and dog blood; this doesn't require a database. They could tell that the human DNA on the suspect matched the victim's blood; combined with the other facts, that might be enough to put him at the scene, and it doesn't require a database. If they needed more evidence, they could tell that the dog blood from both samples came from a single animal; again, there should be no need for a database.
I'm not sure what identifying the animal from which the dog blood originated adds to that. ("Wellll, he was covered in the victim's blood and blood from an animal that was at the crime scene, but that doesn't tell us anything... Oh, wait - he also owned the animal in question? Well, then!" If that's the reasoning, I guess the message is "if you're going to use a dog as a weapon, use someone else's dog".) But even then, no need for a database to match the blood sample to the dog since you have access to the dog you suspect it will match.
So I don't doubt that a database exists and was used; but I suspect its use and the subsequent publicity have more to do with someone's political agenda (make DNA databases look like useful tools) and less to do with real investigative techniques or real science.
not quite there yet, but it's another step along the way...
still, at least we will have computers that are voice controlled and capable of infinite zoom into a photo.. oh, and hot femmbots
http://slashdot.org/~GuyFawkes/journal
When I see a dog objecting to the invasion of his privacy, either in writing or verbally, then they should expunge that dog's DNA records. Until that time, it's fair game. As a side note, how do I go about training my dog to hold people while I stab them to death?
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
Well, let's see. As our guest we have Mr. Sniggles, a very opinionated 7 year old terrier-poodle cross.
Q: Mr. Sniggles, what do you feel about the collection of your DNA.
A: Grrrr-rufff!!!
Q: It's that intrusive, eh? But don't you feel that in the greater interests of fighting crime, not to mention the very limited rights that pets have, it's hard to object to it?
A: Ruff ruff ruff!!!!
Q: I guess I can see where you're coming from. But that bit about Richard Nixon seems very offtopic.
A: Grrrrrrrr...
Q: No, I don't think I'd like a tape recorder stuck up there. But seriously, Mr. Sniggles. If we catch the bad guys, surely a sacrifice of some liberties seems a reasonable tradeoff.
A: Ruff ruff rrrrr.
Q: Yes, I know what Benjamin Franklin said, but ol' Franklin didn't have to live in a world filled with drug lords, terrorists and pedophiles.
A: Ruff ruff ruff!
Q: Clearly we're at an impasse here. And as you are my dog, I can take your damned DNA any time I damned well please.
A: Grrrrr....
Q: What was that about Frederick Douglass.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Is that the leg he humped? Have CSI take a swab of it and we'll check the database.
Have gnu, will travel.
During the attack Tyson was accidentally stabbed and police found a 600-yard blood trail leading from the scene. When they arrested Johnson nearby they found he was covered in blood.
Detectives said that not only was it the first time a status dog had been used in the course of a killing but it was also the first case of its kind where they could use dog DNA to prove a one in a billion match to Tyson – and link his owner to the murder scene.
Detective Chief Inspector Mick Norman, who led the investigation, told The Times: “It was vitally important that we could put Johnson at the scene of the attack. We did not have excellent ID evidence and using the dog DNA database forensically unequivocally placed Johnson at the scene of the murder.”
So your saying, finding the murder, johnson, covered with the victims blood wasn't enough evidence? While I'm sure they want an air tight case, really, what else they want, Johnson putting a youtube video of it up?
Be seeing you...
Something like: "The FBI doesn't keep files on dead cats... not yet." - is that right?
I dont know why i even bothered to click on this article.