Slashdot Mirror


Twins' DNA Foils Police

Hugh Pickens writes "The Telegraph reports that James and John Parr were both arrested after watches worth £10,000 were stolen from a shopping center. Police found blood on a piece of glass at the scene of the crime and traced it back to the 25-year-old identical twins through DNA tests. But James and John both denied the theft and, because they have identical DNA, it has been impossible to prove beyond a reasonable doubt which twin is responsible. 'The police told us that they knew it was one of us, but we both denied it,' says James. 'I definitely know I didn't do anything wrong. I was watching my daughter that night.' Now the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) has concluded that it cannot prove beyond reasonable doubt who was responsible. 'Unless further evidence becomes available, we are unable to authorize any charge at this time,' says CPS spokesman Rob Pett. 'This is certainly not something that we regularly encounter.' Identical twins have hindered police investigations a number of times since the advent of DNA testing. In Malaysia last year, a man suspected of drug-smuggling and sentenced to death was released when the court could not prove whether it was he or his twin brother who committed the crime."

10 of 209 comments (clear)

  1. Old days? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    So DNA is the only way to prove guilt and find the truth? I remember in the old days, before DNA, they were still able to catch criminals. Maybe they should find some retired police officers to see how it's really done.

  2. Just goes to show by azaris · · Score: 5, Insightful

    DNA by itself should never be used as the sole evidence to convict someone. It can be a useful indicator for finding suspects, but there always needs to be more direct evidence to provide a conviction. It is not just that people who don't have twins can be convicted solely based on DNA evidence, while people who do have twins cannot because of the possibility of convicting an innocent person. And that is not even going into DNA collisions or tainted samples.

  3. Re:Um, this is easy by Threni · · Score: 4, Interesting

    And which one cut himself opening catfood. You don't go to prison for cutting yourself feeding your cat, right?

  4. Re:Um, this is easy by TheRaven64 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Who says it was either of them? DNA fingerprints are not unique. There are likely to be 50 other people in the UK with the same DNA fingerprint as the twins and it's entirely possible that one of them was the robber. The depressing thing is that the police seem to think that this is enough evidence to convict even if there is no other evidence, unless they happen to randomly find two people with the same DNA fingerprint.

    --
    I am TheRaven on Soylent News
  5. Um, this is easy: bacterial forensics by Kozz · · Score: 4, Interesting

    If the twins have not been living near-identical lives (sharing cars, apartments, etc), they probably have distinct bacterial colonies, and bacterial forensics (an emerging science) could be the key.

    http://www.sciencefriday.com/program/archives/201003193

    This method cannot conclusively place an individual at the scene of the crime, but if combined with DNA evidence, I think you'd have a pretty air-tight case.

    --
    I only post comments when someone on the internet is wrong.
  6. Re:Alternative by moteyalpha · · Score: 5, Funny

    No, my theory is they are telling the truth. What they lied about ( by omission ) is that they are triplets and if they had found the third he would have admitted to the crime.

  7. It's actually worse than that by ChrisCampbell47 · · Score: 4, Informative

    DNA has been getting relied on heavily lately to solve otherwise cold cases. States have started running crime scene evidence through DNA databases wholesale, and then running with whatever match they get, even if it's just a partial.

    Think about it: if there's a one in a million chance that the DNA will match, and you have a 20 million person database, then you're going to get 20 matches. Now just find the guy who's most convenient to prosecute. Boom, instant cold case conversion!

    DNA's Dirty Little Secret: a forensic tool renowned for exonerating the innocent may actually be putting them in prison
    http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2010/1003.bobelian.html

    Also:

    New Rule Allows Use of Partial DNA Matches
    http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/25/nyregion/25dna.html

    DNA Evidence Can Be Fabricated, Scientists Show
    http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/18/science/18dna.html

  8. Fuck that! by mosb1000 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    As an identical twin, I can tell you that your idea stinks. If my brother commits a crime, and I deny it, I don't think I should be charged with obstruction of justice. I don't know what he's doing at any given time of the day. I couldn't tell you what he's doing right now. He could be robbing a jewelry store for all I know.

    1. Re:Fuck that! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

      well, he knows you're not, but he's trying to pin it on you now while he's at the jewelry store.

  9. Re:Obvious Solution by Smauler · · Score: 4, Funny

    No, it's way easier than that. All you have to do is analyse their DNA, and see which of them has the Evil Bit set. I can't believe this hasn't been done yet.

    ps. The evil bit in DNA is not detected by normal comparisons. You need to find a geneticist with 1337 DN4 5C4NN1NG 5K1LLZ. The median age for such geneticists is 13, interestingly.