DNA Used to Charged Mother with Murder of her Newborn

In the winter of 1981 a newborn baby was found wrapped in a blanket with frozen tears on his checks in a ditch near Sioux Falls, S.D. The baby was never reported missing, but the residents of Sioux Falls named him Andrew John Doe. For 4 decades the child remained unidentified, but authorities finally found the mother. With genetic testing and genealogy, the police determined that Theresa R. Bentaas, a Sioux Falls resident was the mother who abandoned her newborn baby. She was arrested and is facing murder charges.

When the baby was found in 1981, the placenta was still attached and traces of blood where found nearby, but that evidence was destroyed in 1995. The investigation had no leads until 2009 by exhuming the body and obtaining DNA remains. After the DNA testing was completed no matches were found until a year later. Two possible matches were found using GEDMatch.com, which a free website that allows people to upload their genetic information. DNA has helped in forensics by solving cases that seemed impossible to solve and with more advancements it will become easier to find suspects.

Gender Determined by a Fingerprint

According to Mr. Halamek and his colleagues,  gender can be determined by an individual's fingerprint.  This is based on the fact that a certain amino acid is found to have levels twice as high in the sweat of women.  Therefore, by testing the levels of residual amino acids in a fingerprint it is possible to conclude whether the person was male or female.  The researchers are in the process of developing additional fingerprint processing where certain criteria about a person can be determined, such as, whether they are young or old, male or female, and their specific ethnicity.  Fingerprint analysis has been used in forensics for years, but never like this.  The author does state however, that Mr. Halamek says these tests "could not replace DNA tests, which are reliable but also time-consuming and expensive".

The fact that women and men different in this little details such as a specific amino acid is quite amazing.  And if we can use these little genetic differences to help "solve" crimes etc, this can be a great step forward in forensics.  I think as the author said this shouldn't become something that replaces DNA tests, however it could become a quick preliminary test when quick information about a crime or someone in general is needed.  Especially if they make these tests simple kits that can be performed without needing advanced lab equipment and such.  

Original Article 

Forensic Evidence Poses a Threat to the Innocent

Cynthia M. Cale argues that "touch DNA" could be causing issues in current forensic analysis. Research has been conducted at the University of Indianapolis proving that it is quite easy for someone's DNA to be transferred to a crime scene without the person being there at all. It is now possible for genetic profiles to be made from merely a few skin cells left, but these genetic profiles prove to be inaccurate.

In a courtroom, "touch DNA" is assumed to be left somewhere from direct contact, but studies are showing that there is no way to know whether or not it was from direct contact or secondary contact. It is possible that after shaking someone's hand, that person could deposit your DNA somewhere else, unknowingly. Because DNA amplification kits have become so sensitive and advanced, a forensic analyst only needs as few as 100 pico grams of DNA to create a genetic profile.

In 2013, Lukis Anderson was charged with murder because his DNA was found under the fingernails of the victim. At the time of the murder, he was in the hospital and the same paramedics took him there that transported the victim. The paramedics transferred Anderson's DNA to the victim most likely. An experiment was carried out by having a pair shake hands for two minutes and then held separate knives, In 85% of the cases, the DNA of the partner was transferred to the knife, and in 20% of the cases the other person was identified as the main contributor of DNA to the knife. This means that it is a very real possibility that this happens in the real world,

With the advancement of technology all the time, this could pose a very big issue. This secondary transfer of DNA could possibly wrongfully convict an innocent person just because they came in contact with someone else. In the courts, the jury is just told that there is a 1 in a quadrillion chance it's not the defendant, but they don't know the process behind it. This definitely needs to be addressed in certain cases of using "touch DNA" as the evidence in a case.