Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

How an ex-FBI profiler helped put an innocent man behind bars

latimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 91 posts

Re: How an ex-FBI profiler helped put an innocent man behind bars

#31

Post by ch4s3 »

rayiner wrote: post #25
ch4s3 wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From what I understand DNA has gotten pretty good when used responsibly, but the rest are no better than reading a chicken's entrails. Have I perhaps been misinformed about DNA?

The problem with DNA is that the theoretical random match probability gets thrown at the jury (like one in whatever billion), while in reality the error rate is dominated by lab error (like one in a hundred). But judges tend to exclude evidence of lab error rates (I guess to avoid people thinking the other way, that DNA isn't reliable).

Ahh, this post and the reply are both really interesting.

Re: How an ex-FBI profiler helped put an innocent man behind bars

#32

Post by leephillips »

neaden wrote: post #27
rayiner wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem with DNA is that the theoretical random match probability gets thrown at the jury (like one in whatever billion), while in reality the error rate is dominated by lab error (like one in a hundred). But judges tend to exclude evidence of lab error rates (I guess to avoid people thinking the other way, that DNA isn't reliable).

There is also the problem of multiple comparisons when they check DNA against a database the probability of randomly finding a match goes up.

It's one version of the epidemiological fallacy. My impression, which may be wishful thinking, is that prosecutors are better educated about these things now and that this kind of thing is less common.

Re: How an ex-FBI profiler helped put an innocent man behind bars

#33

Post by wyldfire »

ch4s3 wrote: post #15
pyre wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is comparing fingerprints really "no better than reading a chicken's entrails?" I could understand things like trying to guess based on similarities with a partial print, but comparing two full prints seems like it would be pretty easy.

You would think, but even "experts" on fingerprinting call it at best an art. It can be affected by bias[1], and there's no standard for declaring a match[2](same case as [1]). > I could understand things like trying to guess based on similarities with a partial print That's really the rub, pun intended I guess, there are no clean neatly pressed fingerprints left on object collected by police, generally speaking. [1]…

The stuff in this thread about fingerprints matching algorithms and DNA lab errors -- does that mean we shouldn't even use it as exculpatory evidence?

Re: How an ex-FBI profiler helped put an innocent man behind bars

#34

Post by GreaterFool »

Zigurd wrote: post #29
danso wrote: post #3

Worth noting that the submitter of this story, user ClintEhrlich, played a main role in freeing the wrongly-convicted man. He posted about it on HN a couple years back, in a highly upvoted and discussed thread (500+ upvotes, 200+ comments): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12010760 Edit: it's an ironic coincidence that this follow-up feature was published on the same day of the news of O.J. Simpson's parole: http…

It's shocking how much "evidence-ish" stuff is permitted, and how evidence is processed by labs integrated with law enforcement and prosecuting bodies. In an era of big data, it's easy to see how "profiling" will turn out to be about as good as a divining rod.

I think this is even more scary:

https://blog.simplejustice.us/2017/05/08/short-take-magic-co...

tl;dr: cop goes for a 160h course, gets a Drug Recognition Expert certificate, then his opinion "based on his training" is enough to establish probable cause and make an arrest and then you sit in jail for however long it takes for tests to get back (if that even helps because "tests come back wrong all the time")

Re: How an ex-FBI profiler helped put an innocent man behind bars

#35

Post by matwood »

loeg wrote: post #26
louithethrid wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can get "DNA" at every barbershop. Every overtrusted tool will become a weakspot.

And you leave fingerprints on everything you touch. But, it's all we've got as far as hard evidence aside from testimony and camera recording.

Basically all we have is camera recordings because 'eye-witness' testimony is notoriously bad.

Re: How an ex-FBI profiler helped put an innocent man behind bars

#36

Post by bsder »

pyre wrote: post #9
ch4s3 wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From what I understand DNA has gotten pretty good when used responsibly, but the rest are no better than reading a chicken's entrails. Have I perhaps been misinformed about DNA?

Is comparing fingerprints really "no better than reading a chicken's entrails?" I could understand things like trying to guess based on similarities with a partial print, but comparing two full prints seems like it would be pretty easy.

First, we have no idea how "unique" fingerprints actually are. Silly, eh?

Second, have we programmed a computer to do it? At this point, something like "fingerprint analysis" should be quite open to machine learning. If we can't program a machine to do it, then probably humans aren't actually accurate either.

Re: How an ex-FBI profiler helped put an innocent man behind bars

#37

Post by winter_blue »

Is there any possibility of this man Safarik being punished? Can Safarik be sued and held accountable for destroying eleven years of an innocent man's life?

I feel like some sort punishment is due towards ruthless opportunistic people like these. (I would say the same about the people who pursued Swartz even after MIT & JSTOR dropped the case.)

Re: How an ex-FBI profiler helped put an innocent man behind bars

#38

Post by oh_sigh »

This Safarik guy sounds like a real piece of shit. Absolutely zero remorse for telling a tall tale in front of a judge and jury which led to a man spending 11 years in prison for something he didn't do.

> “Like other killers I’ve known, he’s also arrogant and narcissistic — fatal traits that led to his demise,” Safarik says. “This was all his doing…. Ultimately, he was responsible for it.”

I only see arrogance and narcissism coming from one person in the story told, and it wasn't from Jennings.

Re: How an ex-FBI profiler helped put an innocent man behind bars

#39

Post by syshum »

matwood wrote: post #35
loeg wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And you leave fingerprints on everything you touch. But, it's all we've got as far as hard evidence aside from testimony and camera recording.

Basically all we have is camera recordings because 'eye-witness' testimony is notoriously bad.

Machine Learning will put a stop to that there are several project right now working completely fabricate audio and video in realistic ways...

Re: How an ex-FBI profiler helped put an innocent man behind bars

#40

Post by sigstoat »

jstewartmobile wrote: post #17
gaius wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

DNA testing too, complete nonsense

Unfair sarcasm. DNA is one of the very few forensic tools with any hard science behind it. Even fingerprints can lead to highly conflicting "expert" opinions.

> DNA is one of the very few forensic tools with any hard science behind it.

forensic toxicology and chemistry also work fine (they use the same tools and techniques that analytical chemists use for assaying unknown substances, or your doctor's office uses for measuring how much of your pain killer is in your system).

the problems from those labs come when the government-run ones decide they're on team blue, instead of team truth, and start making shit up.

Post reply on HN