Detectives Just Used DNA to Solve a 1956 Double Homicide(npr.org)
npr.org
Detectives Just Used DNA to Solve a 1956 Double Homicide
https://www.npr.org/2021/06/12/1005690930/detectives-just-used-dna-to-solve-a-1956-double-homicide-they-may-have-made-hist
68 comments
> I see zero benefit to going through the final steps after they determined that their suspect had already died
If the victim has living friends & family, it provides closure. Additionally, solving cases, however old, boosts public confidence that crimes will not go unpunished, which in turn acts as a deterrent for future crime.
If the victim has living friends & family, it provides closure. Additionally, solving cases, however old, boosts public confidence that crimes will not go unpunished, which in turn acts as a deterrent for future crime.
Yep, it's egregiously irresponsible of them to do that. Like being smug happy about correcting sometimes grammar. F them.
> Additionally, solving cases, however old, boosts public confidence that crimes will not go unpunished
But in this particular case, the family of the suspect was really the only one to get “punishment”, not the actual suspect (which now had no way of defense as others have pointed out).
But in this particular case, the family of the suspect was really the only one to get “punishment”, not the actual suspect (which now had no way of defense as others have pointed out).
The threat of punishment has never been shown to be a deterrent to crime.
EDIT: I would have thought this was a well-known issue by now, but for those who are disagreeing, "punishments do not deter crime" is also the opinion of the National Institute of Justice: https://nij.ojp.gov/topics/articles/five-things-about-deterr...
EDIT: I would have thought this was a well-known issue by now, but for those who are disagreeing, "punishments do not deter crime" is also the opinion of the National Institute of Justice: https://nij.ojp.gov/topics/articles/five-things-about-deterr...
Do more drivers turn right at red lights in the US than in say UK were it is illegal?
The legality of the action is not the only difference between those two locales. A right turn on red is significantly more dangerous in the UK than in the US.
Oh ... ye well lets pretend I wrote "turn left at red lights in UK" shall we?
I think you’re getting downvotes for the statement “never been shown”. It’s an overly broad claim, and even the link you posted talks more about the severity of punishment being a weaker deterrent than the certainty of being caught (and punished). There’s still no doubt that if theft was suddenly not punished at all then there would be more theft.
From other reading I’ve done the consistency of punishment is more important, and it’s better for criminal justice systems to provide a certain small punishment than an inconsistent outsized punishment, and this has a lot to do with the way humans evaluate risks, and improved paths towards helping criminals becoming non-criminals.
Anyway, I learned a bit from the link you posted, mostly that this sort of thinking is mainstream enough to be presented like this by the DoJ. So have my upvote.
From other reading I’ve done the consistency of punishment is more important, and it’s better for criminal justice systems to provide a certain small punishment than an inconsistent outsized punishment, and this has a lot to do with the way humans evaluate risks, and improved paths towards helping criminals becoming non-criminals.
Anyway, I learned a bit from the link you posted, mostly that this sort of thinking is mainstream enough to be presented like this by the DoJ. So have my upvote.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/san-franci...
Seems to be a direct counter example. Punishments for shoplifting was effectively made nonexistent and then organized crime rings sprung up to begin shoplifting.
The problem with that is the government has no only removed prison as a punishment, but also removed all possible punishment as they have refused any accountability at all and disallows the use of force to defend property.
That is far far far different than what the OP is talking about
That is far far far different than what the OP is talking about
The comment by the appropriately named “moron4hire” said the threat of punishment doesn’t work, not “prison isn’t the best form of punishment”.
The very first statement in that link directly contradicts what you said. It says:
> The certainty of being caught is a vastly more powerful deterrent than the punishment.
The “certainty of being caught” is the threat of punishment. You’ve gotten it confused with the severity of punishment.
> The certainty of being caught is a vastly more powerful deterrent than the punishment.
The “certainty of being caught” is the threat of punishment. You’ve gotten it confused with the severity of punishment.
The line you quoted clearly makes a distinction between getting caught and being punished. Punishments are not the only possible response to someone having committed and being convicted of a crime. A heroin user could be put in prison or sent to a rehab program. One is a punishment, the other is not.
The action taken being against what the recipient wants to do with their time is not what defines a punishment. Punishments are correctional actions that rely on the power of violence deprive the recipient of something: money, freedom, comfort, life. Rehabilitation is a correctional action that relies on reason and education for the recipient.
The action taken being against what the recipient wants to do with their time is not what defines a punishment. Punishments are correctional actions that rely on the power of violence deprive the recipient of something: money, freedom, comfort, life. Rehabilitation is a correctional action that relies on reason and education for the recipient.
How do you punish a dead man?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posthumous_execution (with several historical examples, among which https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cadaver_Synod: “the ecclesiastical trial of Pope Formosus, who had been dead for about seven months, in the Basilica of St. John Lateran in Rome during January 897. The trial was conducted by Pope Stephen VI, the successor to Formosus' successor, Pope Boniface VI. Stephen had Formosus' corpse exhumed and brought to the papal court for judgment”. I guess the judgment was “this case stinks”))
That's a performance which doesn't actually punish the dead person because the dead person is...well...dead.
A. They tested the suspect's children's DNA and got a positive.
B. It's true sperm doesn't equal murder. But in this case the victim was asexually assaulted and then murdered. The likelihood of both crimes committed by the same person is way higher than two different persons.
B. It's true sperm doesn't equal murder. But in this case the victim was asexually assaulted and then murdered. The likelihood of both crimes committed by the same person is way higher than two different persons.
Does my reasonable doubt count?
The fall guy they pulled in for a raped and murdered jogger in NYC was willing to confess and then was like "woah woah I didn't do the rape where did that charge come from"
There could just as easily be a Brock Turner in the woods seeing an incapacitated girl and fiddling around, except this time the victim would already be or about to be dead.
Too many examples for me to make that conclusion. So, my reasonable doubt would count if I was on the jury. Convicting/Acquitting someone is one thing, we all pat ourselves on the back, but the thing that really bothers me is when the dangerous person is still out there. Who cares about debating the doubt when there is a greater likelihood of ongoing danger in the community but now the investigation isn't even happening. Its debating someone's freedom versus debating the safety of the community which is a larger group of people, the greater doubt is actually about whether the community is now safe instead of whether I like this person's alibi.
The fall guy they pulled in for a raped and murdered jogger in NYC was willing to confess and then was like "woah woah I didn't do the rape where did that charge come from"
There could just as easily be a Brock Turner in the woods seeing an incapacitated girl and fiddling around, except this time the victim would already be or about to be dead.
Too many examples for me to make that conclusion. So, my reasonable doubt would count if I was on the jury. Convicting/Acquitting someone is one thing, we all pat ourselves on the back, but the thing that really bothers me is when the dangerous person is still out there. Who cares about debating the doubt when there is a greater likelihood of ongoing danger in the community but now the investigation isn't even happening. Its debating someone's freedom versus debating the safety of the community which is a larger group of people, the greater doubt is actually about whether the community is now safe instead of whether I like this person's alibi.
So you think the accused killers family would be much happier if they found out he didn’t kill either of them, just had sex with the dying girl and left her to die?
That's where your mind went. In this article, it would be just as easy for them to have had consensual sex beforehand.
The feelings of the family is not a factor in investigating and prosecuting the right people.
The feelings of the family is not a factor in investigating and prosecuting the right people.
> That's where your mind went
This is in the post he's replying to:
> There could just as easily be a Brock Turner in the woods seeing an incapacitated girl and fiddling around, except this time the victim would already be or about to be dead.
Brock Turner is a well known recent case of rape, the rapist (Brock Turner) sexually assaulted an unconscious woman before two graduate students intervened.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People_v._Turner
This is in the post he's replying to:
> There could just as easily be a Brock Turner in the woods seeing an incapacitated girl and fiddling around, except this time the victim would already be or about to be dead.
Brock Turner is a well known recent case of rape, the rapist (Brock Turner) sexually assaulted an unconscious woman before two graduate students intervened.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People_v._Turner
Except they were conflating the examples with the article along with the Brock Turner reference
Its almost impossible to respond except in the way that I did
Half the parent level comments are also saying semen isn't a great for helping with anything except investigating a sexual assault
Its almost impossible to respond except in the way that I did
Half the parent level comments are also saying semen isn't a great for helping with anything except investigating a sexual assault
> “ There could just as easily be a Brock Turner in the woods seeing an incapacitated girl and fiddling around, except this time the victim would already be or about to be dead.”
You posited he could have merely raped the dying victim (semen isn’t left by “fiddling around”). I ask you again whether hit matters if he was a rapist-murderer or merely a rapist of bound murder victims.
Reasonable doubt doesn’t mean constructing convoluted scenarios to explain how he left his semen in her without raping or murdering her. Occams Razor falls very hard on the obvious answer here.
You posited he could have merely raped the dying victim (semen isn’t left by “fiddling around”). I ask you again whether hit matters if he was a rapist-murderer or merely a rapist of bound murder victims.
Reasonable doubt doesn’t mean constructing convoluted scenarios to explain how he left his semen in her without raping or murdering her. Occams Razor falls very hard on the obvious answer here.
[deleted]
The potential benefits here are that it's possible the assumed culprit has committed other crimes, and this knowledge could solve other cases, some where potentially the crime has been pinned to an innocent person.
I'm unsure how this potentially positive match would enter databases though, and find it very unlikely that any potentially "solved" case would have DNA tested against such a database.
Publishing the assumed culprit's name and details seems fairly egregious though.
I'm unsure how this potentially positive match would enter databases though, and find it very unlikely that any potentially "solved" case would have DNA tested against such a database.
Publishing the assumed culprit's name and details seems fairly egregious though.
Yes, the publishing of the details is what gets to me. Throughout the article they treat the case as solved and the man as the guilty party, which they would never do to a living person before a verdict. To thousands of NPR readers, this man is not only the prime suspect but also the guilty party, in spite of the fact that charges will never be filed and guilt or innocence will never be formally determined.
Why is it a burden for the family? The family surely wanted the case solved...?
I believe the comment was about the murders family.
Up until this point they had no idea, they now have to live with that knowledge.
The only people being punished now are the these family members who did nothing wrong.
Up until this point they had no idea, they now have to live with that knowledge.
The only people being punished now are the these family members who did nothing wrong.
The worst part for the family is that the media can label their father a rapist and murderer without him actually having been convicted. The police have strong evidence, from the sound of it, but with a living person the news media wouldn't be allowed to go around saying unequivocally "he's the guy" without a guilty verdict.
The upshot is that even if there's been a mistake, this man's name will never be cleared, and his family will just have to live with this.
The upshot is that even if there's been a mistake, this man's name will never be cleared, and his family will just have to live with this.
The family agreed to help the police figure it out.
Maybe their reaction to learning the news was more like "yeah this makes sense - dad was an abusive asshole my whole life. At least I wasn't killed".
Maybe their reaction to learning the news was more like "yeah this makes sense - dad was an abusive asshole my whole life. At least I wasn't killed".
The police going to ask them in the first place was a wrong decision. A family minding their own business doing nothing wrong should not be burdened with someone showing up at their door saying "we think that you're the children of a murder rapist. If you don't help us that's definitely what we're going to conclude. If you do help us there's a chance that we'll conclude it anyway, but you never know. He's dead now so we have no requirement to overcome a legal defense. What say you?"
That's known as a devil's bargain.
> Maybe their reaction to learning
A more likely outcome is irreparable trauma.
That's known as a devil's bargain.
> Maybe their reaction to learning
A more likely outcome is irreparable trauma.
Are you saying you wouldn't like to know if your father were a rapist-murderer? I don't get it, really. And I'm pretty sure it can help those people learn better about themselves and their past. This is why they accepted.
> The family agreed to help the police figure it out.
No. A couple of children, grand children, or cousins agreed to share their DNA (or it was legally removed without consent). The rest could have told the cops "NO", and they still would have gotten enough DNA evidence.
No. A couple of children, grand children, or cousins agreed to share their DNA (or it was legally removed without consent). The rest could have told the cops "NO", and they still would have gotten enough DNA evidence.
This. Detectives’ thirst for solving (or just finding someone to blame/force a confession out of) crimes will often override their duty for true justice, by whatever means they want.
> the murders family
It's rather important that we say "accused's family". It's irresponsible to label someone a murderer without giving them an honest opportunity for defense.
It's rather important that we say "accused's family". It's irresponsible to label someone a murderer without giving them an honest opportunity for defense.
In so many instances where you will never know the name of the person who wrongs you. If you are waiting to "know who did you wrong" before you "move on", you will wallow in misery.
Please, for the sake of your own mental health, try to separate "closure" from "legal justice".
Please, for the sake of your own mental health, try to separate "closure" from "legal justice".
In addition, why is it that these people were missed on the initial investigations?
For example, the Golden State Killer had a whole set of characteristics that should have narrowed it down to him.
I suspect this case is similar.
For example, the Golden State Killer had a whole set of characteristics that should have narrowed it down to him.
I suspect this case is similar.
I agree. I believe this article is to be a “tug your heartstrings” to be against the very logical restriction on forensic DNA analysis by “reconstructing a reverse family tree” which is quite often wrong.
While it can be wrong the cost of a wrong is minor--they test the DNA, it doesn't match, they continue their search, now perhaps with better information as to how the tree fits together.
> While it can be wrong the cost of a wrong is minor
NO. NO NO NO. The cost is VERY much NOT MINOR. In the 80s and 90s, DNA was over used and it was incorrectly used to put the wrong people in prison for a very long time. The cost of mistakes is NOT trivial.
NO. NO NO NO. The cost is VERY much NOT MINOR. In the 80s and 90s, DNA was over used and it was incorrectly used to put the wrong people in prison for a very long time. The cost of mistakes is NOT trivial.
Yeah, what caught my attention was the casual
> although new state legislation restricting forensic genealogy could complicate matters
as if affording important privacy protections is a "complication" that interferes with their goal of a safer world. Much of the article reads like a thinly veiled lobbying piece for why police should be less restricted in how they use this technique.
> although new state legislation restricting forensic genealogy could complicate matters
as if affording important privacy protections is a "complication" that interferes with their goal of a safer world. Much of the article reads like a thinly veiled lobbying piece for why police should be less restricted in how they use this technique.
I've personally followed Andrew Singer's/BODE's work and have been present in his (and other forensic genealogists) presentations to the forensics community. I was literally in the audience 2 days ago for another of his. I am a professional Forensic Scientist who is specialized in DNA. My educational background is in biochemistry & molecular genetics. Feel free to ask me anything.
There is a lot of misunderstandings in this thread so far. For one, on the idea that "sperm does not automatically equal murder," is of course logically true. DNA evidence doesn't equate that point, but it does suggest that there is a putative perpetrator who could be responsible for the crime. It's not up to forensic scientists to decide who committed what crimes. We can tell that the person was "there." It's up to the detectives to argue/figure out, and ultimately the judicial system to decide the outcome/verdict.
She was raped and killed, who's DNA was on the vaginal swab? Most likely the perpetrator.
Secondly, to suggest that modern DNA forensic science is questionable is farce. There have been major issues with interpretation in the past with non-accredited crime labs/analysts/methods/persons making bogus conclusions, but these days, and for the last 15+ years, has just plain not happened. If there were unqualified interpretations they would be thrown out of the courthouse in a nanosecond.
The absoluteness of DNA mixture interpretations is getting better and better. Google "probabilistic genotyping." A human can reasonably look at data and discern multiple DNA profiles up to a few people when it comes to certain limited mixtures. Prob. Gen. software can deconvolute up to about 10 distinct people in a DNA mixture. It's basically brute force computing. I bring this up because some of the examples other's posted here happened when such tech didn't exist and bogus interpretations were going on.
As for the ethics point. I have met with many victims personally. Not one has ever not returned genuine overly emotional gratefulness of our efforts. Many brave victims become spokespeople and support for other victims. They tour my lab all the time in wonder. I can't tell you how many cases we've solved. DNA evidence, investigations, then a line up, then "that's the one!" happen all the time. These would have never happened without DNA evidence.
There is a lot of misunderstandings in this thread so far. For one, on the idea that "sperm does not automatically equal murder," is of course logically true. DNA evidence doesn't equate that point, but it does suggest that there is a putative perpetrator who could be responsible for the crime. It's not up to forensic scientists to decide who committed what crimes. We can tell that the person was "there." It's up to the detectives to argue/figure out, and ultimately the judicial system to decide the outcome/verdict.
She was raped and killed, who's DNA was on the vaginal swab? Most likely the perpetrator.
Secondly, to suggest that modern DNA forensic science is questionable is farce. There have been major issues with interpretation in the past with non-accredited crime labs/analysts/methods/persons making bogus conclusions, but these days, and for the last 15+ years, has just plain not happened. If there were unqualified interpretations they would be thrown out of the courthouse in a nanosecond.
The absoluteness of DNA mixture interpretations is getting better and better. Google "probabilistic genotyping." A human can reasonably look at data and discern multiple DNA profiles up to a few people when it comes to certain limited mixtures. Prob. Gen. software can deconvolute up to about 10 distinct people in a DNA mixture. It's basically brute force computing. I bring this up because some of the examples other's posted here happened when such tech didn't exist and bogus interpretations were going on.
As for the ethics point. I have met with many victims personally. Not one has ever not returned genuine overly emotional gratefulness of our efforts. Many brave victims become spokespeople and support for other victims. They tour my lab all the time in wonder. I can't tell you how many cases we've solved. DNA evidence, investigations, then a line up, then "that's the one!" happen all the time. These would have never happened without DNA evidence.
Upvoted, but even large cities continue to have problems with labs making mistakes.
That is, the science is sound but I feel private citizens (whether accused or accusing) need second and third independent verifying just to be sure.
That is, the science is sound but I feel private citizens (whether accused or accusing) need second and third independent verifying just to be sure.
> to suggest that modern DNA forensic science is questionable is farce.
https://strbase.nist.gov/pub_pres/Coble-ABA2014-MIX13.pdf
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/21/opinion/the-dangers-of-dn...
"Researchers [in 2013] from the National Institute of Standards and Technology gave the same DNA mixture to about 105 American crime laboratories and three Canadian labs and asked them to compare it with DNA from three suspects from a mock bank robbery. ... 74 labs wrongly said the sample included DNA evidence from the third suspect, an “innocent person” who should have been cleared of the hypothetical felony."
That 2013 NIST report was not published until 5 years later in 2018.
How "modern" do we need to get, exactly?
Is less than a week ago modern? https://www.nist.gov/news-events/news/2021/06/nist-publishes...
"KEY TAKEAWAY #4.3: Currently, there is not enough publicly available data to enable an external and independent assessment of the degree of reliability of DNA mixture interpretation practices, including the use of probabilistic genotyping software (PGS) systems."
> If there were unqualified interpretations they would be thrown out of the courthouse in a nanosecond.
All you have to do is search for "DNA lab mishandled" or "forensic lab mishandled" to see that what you're saying is extremely wrong and naïve. And besides this is a case where there's no courthouse, no defense, no chance to determine whether the interpretation is an error.
> There have been major issues with interpretation in the past with non-accredited crime labs/analysts/methods/persons making bogus conclusions, but these days, and for the last 15+ years, has just plain not happened.
Again see the above references to evidence mishandling and _extremely_ recent NIST reports.
You seem to suffer from the misapprehension that statistical algorithms are magic and that DNA analysis happens in a computational vacuum and that there isn't an extremely error-prone physical process involved in collecting, preparing, maintaining, and analyzing specimens and that we don't have a very long and continuing history of falsifying evidence, mishandling specimens, biased interpretation, erroneous conclusions presented as fact, and covering up procedural errors.
> She was raped and killed, who's DNA was on the vaginal swab? Most likely the perpetrator.
First, you mean whose DNA was _allegedly_ on a vaginal swab. You have no reason to believe that a specimen collected in _1956_ has been handled and preserved correctly this entire time. Second, "I think it's most likely so we don't need to worry about defense" is not how criminal justice works.
> I have met with many victims personally.
I notice that you did not say you met with the family of the accused, which is the family I was talking about. I thought that would be clear in context, but maybe not. Anyway it should be clear now.
"I have met with many victims personally" sounds a lot like you work mostly with prosecutors. Unfortunately that role often goes hand in hand with blatant disregard for exceedingly rampant and flagrant due process failures.
> We can tell that the person was "there."
You can't even reliably tell that a person's DNA is present in a mixture at the time of analysis let alone whether a person was in a particular place at a particular time 65 years ago. Believing that you can is why innocent people keep going to prison. The list of utterly bunk forensic techniques that get presented as fact because prosecution relies on juror ignorance and compliance is a mile long. Can we just stop doing that, please?
https://strbase.nist.gov/pub_pres/Coble-ABA2014-MIX13.pdf
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/21/opinion/the-dangers-of-dn...
"Researchers [in 2013] from the National Institute of Standards and Technology gave the same DNA mixture to about 105 American crime laboratories and three Canadian labs and asked them to compare it with DNA from three suspects from a mock bank robbery. ... 74 labs wrongly said the sample included DNA evidence from the third suspect, an “innocent person” who should have been cleared of the hypothetical felony."
That 2013 NIST report was not published until 5 years later in 2018.
How "modern" do we need to get, exactly?
Is less than a week ago modern? https://www.nist.gov/news-events/news/2021/06/nist-publishes...
"KEY TAKEAWAY #4.3: Currently, there is not enough publicly available data to enable an external and independent assessment of the degree of reliability of DNA mixture interpretation practices, including the use of probabilistic genotyping software (PGS) systems."
> If there were unqualified interpretations they would be thrown out of the courthouse in a nanosecond.
All you have to do is search for "DNA lab mishandled" or "forensic lab mishandled" to see that what you're saying is extremely wrong and naïve. And besides this is a case where there's no courthouse, no defense, no chance to determine whether the interpretation is an error.
> There have been major issues with interpretation in the past with non-accredited crime labs/analysts/methods/persons making bogus conclusions, but these days, and for the last 15+ years, has just plain not happened.
Again see the above references to evidence mishandling and _extremely_ recent NIST reports.
You seem to suffer from the misapprehension that statistical algorithms are magic and that DNA analysis happens in a computational vacuum and that there isn't an extremely error-prone physical process involved in collecting, preparing, maintaining, and analyzing specimens and that we don't have a very long and continuing history of falsifying evidence, mishandling specimens, biased interpretation, erroneous conclusions presented as fact, and covering up procedural errors.
> She was raped and killed, who's DNA was on the vaginal swab? Most likely the perpetrator.
First, you mean whose DNA was _allegedly_ on a vaginal swab. You have no reason to believe that a specimen collected in _1956_ has been handled and preserved correctly this entire time. Second, "I think it's most likely so we don't need to worry about defense" is not how criminal justice works.
> I have met with many victims personally.
I notice that you did not say you met with the family of the accused, which is the family I was talking about. I thought that would be clear in context, but maybe not. Anyway it should be clear now.
"I have met with many victims personally" sounds a lot like you work mostly with prosecutors. Unfortunately that role often goes hand in hand with blatant disregard for exceedingly rampant and flagrant due process failures.
> We can tell that the person was "there."
You can't even reliably tell that a person's DNA is present in a mixture at the time of analysis let alone whether a person was in a particular place at a particular time 65 years ago. Believing that you can is why innocent people keep going to prison. The list of utterly bunk forensic techniques that get presented as fact because prosecution relies on juror ignorance and compliance is a mile long. Can we just stop doing that, please?
What would happen if I swiped my murder weapon thru rack of clothes in a second hand shop?
Unabomber collected hair from public restrooms to sprinkle in with his mailbombs.
I can’t find the link but apparently there was a case of someone riding an escalator with gloves later used in a murder and several people’s DNA being found on the gloves.
I think the police then track down each of these individuals and establish a motive or an alibi.
But DNA alone shouldn’t convict someone.
I think the police then track down each of these individuals and establish a motive or an alibi.
But DNA alone shouldn’t convict someone.
I think about the Lukis Anderson case every time DNA is used to “solve” a crime.
What state restrictions on scouring DNA databases would you like? The article points out how incoming state laws would make this investigation impossible, but it turns out it was just a few states being referenced.
I think this needs to be treated as property of the individual as well, or even of an individual's estate, and there must be consent granted for each use and compensation for it. Consent can be revokable and a record of the consent's state should be attached to every piece of data.
It leaves the avenue open for this same kind of investigation to occur.
I think this needs to be treated as property of the individual as well, or even of an individual's estate, and there must be consent granted for each use and compensation for it. Consent can be revokable and a record of the consent's state should be attached to every piece of data.
It leaves the avenue open for this same kind of investigation to occur.
NPR, totally not a state propaganda organ, runs pro-forensic "science" propaganda. Why does this not surprise me anymore?
Are you against forensic science or do you doubt the validity of it?
Much like cryptography, the science of DNA is good, but the roll-your-own DNA forensics implementations have had issues.
https://www.propublica.org/article/thousands-of-criminal-cas...
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/06/a-reaso...
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/21/opinion/the-dangers-of-dn...
A quote from The NY Times article:
“The first two suspects’ DNA was part of the mixture, and most labs correctly matched their DNA to the evidence. However, 74 labs wrongly said the sample included DNA evidence from the third suspect, an “innocent person” who should have been cleared of the hypothetical felony.”
There were 108 labs tested. 74 of 108 fingered an innocent person.
As long as DNA forensics processes are open source, we should be good, because the questionable component is the implementation, not the base science.
But, closed source DNA forensics is dangerous, I think.
https://www.propublica.org/article/thousands-of-criminal-cas...
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/06/a-reaso...
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/21/opinion/the-dangers-of-dn...
A quote from The NY Times article:
“The first two suspects’ DNA was part of the mixture, and most labs correctly matched their DNA to the evidence. However, 74 labs wrongly said the sample included DNA evidence from the third suspect, an “innocent person” who should have been cleared of the hypothetical felony.”
There were 108 labs tested. 74 of 108 fingered an innocent person.
As long as DNA forensics processes are open source, we should be good, because the questionable component is the implementation, not the base science.
But, closed source DNA forensics is dangerous, I think.
There is plenty of evidence that DNA tests are unreliable.
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/03/forensics-gone-wrong...
A lot of forensic science, such as hair analysis, bullet casing analysis, and bite mark analysis, is either partially or entirely bunk.
- https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/crime/fbi-overstated-fo...
- https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/03/reversing-legacy-jun...
- http://www.bostonreview.net/books-ideas/nathan-robinson-fore...
- https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/crime/fbi-overstated-fo...
- https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/03/reversing-legacy-jun...
- http://www.bostonreview.net/books-ideas/nathan-robinson-fore...
I wonder how much funding the state provides to a state propaganda organ. Has to be more than a couple percentage points?
The first thing that comes to mind after reading this article is that they don't have enough evidence to conclude that the fact that there were sperm in the victim that weren't from her boyfriend actually means that they were murdered by the creator of said sperm.
It seems likely, but calling the case 'solved' just based on that is a bit of a stretch to me. Maybe the article is leaving out some important details.
It seems likely, but calling the case 'solved' just based on that is a bit of a stretch to me. Maybe the article is leaving out some important details.
Come on, we all know that any woman who cheats on her boyfriend is immediately murdered by the same guy she cheated with.
Just like we know that the spouse that has a life insurance policy opened on them is immediately murdered by the surviving spouse, instead of the life insurance agent
We don't! We just assume!
We don't! We just assume!
I watch a lot of Forensic Files, and one of the tropes is "the spouse had a $30k life insurance policy, therefore he/she had motive".
I've always wondered who is motivated to murder by as little as $30k. Sure you can murder for NON financial reasons, but if money is top of mind - $30k, really?
I've always wondered who is motivated to murder by as little as $30k. Sure you can murder for NON financial reasons, but if money is top of mind - $30k, really?
Here's a list of suspected perpetrators of crimes identified via genealogy databases. [0] This case is not in this list (yet).
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_suspected_perpetrators...
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_suspected_perpetrators...
Who involved really is better off, after hearing of the ”solution” to this crime? Except for maybe the police department, possibly a detective with an itch to scratch, and definitely the firm used for the genealogical dna profile (mentioned by name in the article), I can think of no one.
Often fraudulent forensic science gets a nice PR boost, and jurors will be more willing to trust forensic evidence and expert witnesses without doubting them than they were before.
It's also PR against some of restrictions on genealogy data some governments are passing.
It's also PR against some of restrictions on genealogy data some governments are passing.
DNA matching from a decades old mixed tissue slide is not an exact process and many factors from handling to a desire to close the case can lead to a wrong conclusion.
The most that can be said is that the detectives are satisfied enough to stop digging, not that the case is solved. Let's remember that a posthumous process allows for zero defense and criminal justice depends on defense.
And besides all of that, it strikes me as wildly unethical to burden the family with this information just to satisfy detective curiosity and desire for closure. I see zero benefit to going through the final steps after they determined that their suspect had already died. The corpse's ashes can't go to prison. The family just lives with this now. That's a negative outcome.