Saturday, July 19, 2008

Old Samples and New Samples

If, let’s say, your DNA has already been extracted in 1998 for a criminal case, and the object on which the said DNA evidence has been paraded in and out of court every day for the whole world to see, and the word DNA evidence has been mentioned in every single line of newspaper reports on a daily basis so much so that an illiterate kampung guy who taps rubber for a living and doesn’t read newspaper and only gets his dose of current news from an afternoon coffee drinking session with his buddies also knows pretty well what DNA is, then why isn’t that DNA records already in the police database?

DNA doesn’t change. At least, that’s what I understand from years and years of watching CSI. It’s there, and it’s not going anywhere. And if it’s already obtained by the police, the genetic fingerprints should stay in the police records for comparison in future cases. Whether or not the DNA sample they still have in their possession is too old is immaterial as what they need should be the DNA profile, the genetic particulars of the sample which should have already been on records, already processed and in print, and not the DNA itself.

Unless the DNA sample is needed for more than just comparative purposes, which is therefore highly suspicious.

And more alarmingly, that despite making such a big deal about the DNA back in 1998 (10 years after the breakthrough in DNA technology and the first conviction in England based on DNA evidence), the Malaysian police has not even bothered to set up a database for DNA evidence they have collected thus far. How far behind are we in scientific technology?

What hope is there to find the killers of Nurin Jazlin and other victims of atrocious crimes then?


Kak Teh said...

correct, correct, correct! Visions of two burly policemen carrying a mattress still haunt me. That sort of marked our style of DNA testing.

Hjh Esah Jolie said...

This is nothing to do with DNA, tapi nak tanya, awat kucing-kucing kau itu kurus-kurus belaka?

Typhoon Sue said...

ye la kakteh. usung pi mai pi mai, last-last, tak masuk as evidence pun. saja buat bising aja. Habuk pun tarak.

Eh, kurus ke? Aku ingat topui aje diaorg tuh... haha
Actually, yg topui sekor aje-Mopster (the 1st pic). The 2nd pic- Pippin, body tak sekata sket. Muka kecik, badan kurus, tapi perut byk lemak. Makan sehari 4 kali tawww! Jgn kata aku tak bagi makan. The 3rd pic- Blanket, body dia sedap aje, lean and athletic.

FairyGodmother said...


there is too much stupidity flying around Malaysia. and the best part is that they expect us to swallow hook, line and sinker with whatever news that they want to feed us.


Edward Skading said...

Dear Blogger,


My name is Edward Skading and I am writing to seek your corporation and support to help me uphold our consumer rights against F&N Dairies’ Contaminated Condensed Sweet Milk – Tea Pot brand.

The full information is posted on my weblog If you wish to contact me please send an email to

I would greatly appreciate your support to expose this incident to all Malaysians because it seems like most main stream media is not interested in this horrible discovery. I wish they would take notice.

I am also in the midst of being taken to court by F&N because of my determination for transparency and truth.

Please come forward and help me. I would greatly value it.

Thank you.

Yours truly,

Edward Skading

papadom_ullalla said...

Update please!

Typhoon Sue said...


edward skading:
read your blog. i understand your situation but i think u're going about this the wrong way, man. You had a legitimate grievance and a valid cause of action against F&N. Just sue them lah! Don't act so noble so as to claim u're not doing this for money. Suing them can bring this matter to light. Defaming them like you're doing now can only backfire against you. Stop it, and find a good lawyer to take your case. And while u're at it, stop vilifying the lawyers as well or you may just have another defamation suit coming.

mr. papadom:
malas lah!