Dr. Jens Carlsson:

I will start with STR versus SNP. It might be that STR technology will work but the chances are much higher that SNP technology will work. The simple reason is that DNA degrades. Think about it as dry spaghetti and we keep on breaking a dry spaghetti straw into smaller and smaller pieces. The piece one needs for an STR analysis is longer than the piece one needs for an SNP analysis. It is as simple as that. It is a shorter fragment so one can tolerate more degradation and still get viable DNA data out of it. That is the simple reason SNPs are probably better in this case.

Another reason is that there are so many more. I think that quite a low number of STRs are used and, although they are statistically powerful, one can simply use many more SNPs.

The Deputy asked about bone and what can happen if one cannot retrieve the petrous bone. The petrous bone is so called because it is the densest bone in the body. It will probably be one of the last bones to start dissolving as bone matter. If one cannot find the petrous bone, people have, for instance, used teeth. There are other tissues that can be interrogated for the presence of DNA.

I do not think we would be able to identify every body. There is no guarantee, of course, but the best chance is with SNP analysis. People have been able to get DNA from the petrous bone from 30,000-year-old newborns. The best chance is getting the petrous bone and running an SNP analysis. Does that answer the Deputy's question?