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?"

Comments

Orwellian

[Anonymous Coward]

I can't think of anything more Orwellian than claiming that having some number of legs is better than some other number of legs.

Yes, there are privacy implications

[russotto]

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.

Re:Yes, there are privacy implications

[Smauler]

Not all dogs are registered - to be honest I didn't even know of this database. Unless they actually test clandestinely (perhaps at the vet's), none of the dogs I know are on the database. There have been recent proposals however about compulsary insurance for dogs, which fortunately seem to be not being put through because of their unpopularity and the coming election. Why the fuck they needed the dog's DNA anyway, is confusing. From the BBC:

Johnson was arrested as he fled from the scene of the murder in Larkhall Park bare-chested and covered in blood.
New technology, used for the first time, proved by a billion-to-one probability that some of the blood came from his pit bull-mastiff crossbreed dog, Tyson, which had been knifed during the attack.
The rest was shown to come from the teenage murder victim.

FFS, it doesn't take Poirot + CSI to figure this one out, does it?

Privacy nutters, some marketing advice

[SmallFurryCreature]

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.

Database? Not really

[alanw]

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.

Re:Database? Not really

[lee1]

Before accusing the journalist of being clueless, try reading beyond the first few paragraphs. '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." The new dog DNA database came online just two-months before the murder in April last year, enabling statistical analysis to be given on samples for the first time...'

Dog? I raise you an oak leaf!

[Wdi]

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.

Re:Interesting...

[Locke2005]

Hey, just because MY DOG was there, doesn't mean I was there! The dog... he's still mad about getting his 'nads removed, and he's trying to frame me!