Analysis of Advanced Criminalistics - Assignment Example

Analysis of Advanced Criminalistics I would not like to be “inconvenienced” by being arrested for having my DNA in a place where “it is not supposed to be.” The robbery took place at a later time of the day after having left the convenience store. The clerk claimed that the suspect had unleashed a gun but they only touched him. It can therefore be concluded that the robbers might have planted some fluid deposits or traces elements containing the customers DNA. In the previous crime, that took place in the room, the person who spoke to the saliva would have been regarded as the culprit of the crime.

This is however not the case, the real suspect had left fingerprints on the very saliva that he spoke onto and DNA testing would have indicated otherwise. Finally, the clerk was not aware of what was going on in the time of the robbery. The asserted that the only thing he could remember was someone who had clothes that resembled those of the customer and the front end of the gun point. In other words, suspect had planted samples with the customers DNA without the prior knowledge of the clerk.

People can be implicated in a crime based on their DNA. Claims have shown that DNA composition is unique on every person except in twins. In case a crime has happened and between two twins, one was involved and later fled to a distance place. The other twin will be implicated to have been involved in the crime. Furthermore, DNA is a chemical compound and is bound to mutations and change (Porada & Straus, 2001). Some tests done on DNA’s of people have errors and when used as evidence, may lead to arresting of a person who was not necessarily a perpetrator in the crime.

Finally, scientists can fabricate DNA of one person resembles the DNA of another person. In such instances, when scientist fabricate DNA obtained from saliva or blood samples of a particular crime scene, they put people whose DNA matches the fabricated DNA, at risk of implication. Identification of the source of the DNA should always be made. This is because some of these detectable levels have errors and some of them are based on truth. Also, most of the detectable levels relies on probability and as a result, they do not give concrete evidence that someone was involved in a crime and that is why identification of the DNA source should be made.

In the case of Samantha death and identification of Alejandro Avila, DNA identification played a major role (Raymond, 2002). DNA found on Samantha’s dead body was compared to DNA found on the car of Avila and they were found to be identical. In addition to that, evidence from DNA can be extracted from DNA’s samples that have been kept for long which is however not the case with detectable levels where these levels can easily be manipulated to hide evidence. Finally, detectable levels bring controversies when used as evidence.

References Porada, V., & Straus, J. (2001). Chriminalistic and forensic biomechanics. Praha, Czech Republic: Police History. Raymond, J., (2002). A criminalistics approach to biological evidence: trace DNA and volume crime offences. New York: Oxford Press.