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

Accused murderer wins right to check source code of DNA testing kit

theregister.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 520 posts

Re: Accused murderer wins right to check source code of DNA testing kit

#171

Post by anonAndOn »

MaxBarraclough wrote: post #16
motohagiography wrote: post #10

It's an important development. Forensic labs and companies are expert witnesses with black box processes and the incentive to protect the authority of their profession. They are as likely to lie as any other witness. Perhaps even moreso. "Those arguing on behalf of the defense cited past problems with other genetic testing software such as STRmix and FST (Forensic Statistical Tool). Defense expert witnesses Mats Heim…

> Forensic labs and companies are expert witnesses with black box processes and the incentive to protect the authority of their profession. I imagine they're also incentivised to favour a result indicating guilt.

> incentivised to favour a result indicating guilt

Exhibit A: Annie Dookhan of the Massachusetts State Crime Lab who is suspected of falsifying thousands of drug tests

[0]https://www.cbsnews.com/news/massachusetts-lab-tech-arrested...

Re: Accused murderer wins right to check source code of DNA testing kit

#172

Post by acranox »

tantalor wrote: post #29
MaxBarraclough wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Forensic labs and companies are expert witnesses with black box processes and the incentive to protect the authority of their profession. I imagine they're also incentivised to favour a result indicating guilt.

Why? The risk to their reputation & livelihood for a false positive should temper that.

Maybe for some, but look what happened in Massachusetts. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annie_Dookhan

Re: Accused murderer wins right to check source code of DNA testing kit

#173

Post by Ekaros »

Spivak wrote: post #142
mseidl wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nobody should use electronic voting.

People keep saying that but electronic voting would be great! Set it up so the process is exactly like mail-in ballots except digital and you can’t have made it any worse. It’s not like emailing a PDF to be opened by an election official is any different than mailing a document to be opened by that same official.

No one should use mail in voting either...

Re: Accused murderer wins right to check source code of DNA testing kit

#174

Post by ryukafalz »

Spivak wrote: post #142
mseidl wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nobody should use electronic voting.

People keep saying that but electronic voting would be great! Set it up so the process is exactly like mail-in ballots except digital and you can’t have made it any worse. It’s not like emailing a PDF to be opened by an election official is any different than mailing a document to be opened by that same official.

How many Nigerian princes have asked for your bank account number via physical mail? How about via email?

The internet lowers the barrier to certain forms of abuse substantially enough that I don't think you can so easily say you won't have made it any worse.

Re: Accused murderer wins right to check source code of DNA testing kit

#175

Post by meowster »

fxleach wrote: post #156

> it would take eight and a half years to review at a rate of ten lines an hour Wow, the co-founder's argument to not disclose the source code to the defendant was that it's too many lines of code. Also... ten lines reviewed in an hour!?

In the TV shows and books, opposing counsel always want to inundate the protagonist with truckloads of boxes full of printed papers when they could just handover a flashdrive instead. Are there any lawyers here who can speak to the accuracy of such portrayal?

It would seem the next logical step would be for every other lawyer to say they shouldn't hand over discovery because it would take to long for the otherside when they bury them in paperwork.

Re: Accused murderer wins right to check source code of DNA testing kit

#176

Post by michaelt »

londons_explore wrote: post #56
badRNG wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If I'm a juror, and the evidence presented happens to have a false positive rate of 1%, that certainly meets my understanding of "a reasonable doubt."

I would need a very very big pile of very clear cut evidence to find someone guilty of a crime where the likely outcome is a substantial prison time. It's all tradeoffs, but "his blood was found on the murder weapon" wouldn't be sufficient for me - some childhood enemy could easily have planted a bunch of forensic evidence next to a crime scene.

Unfortunately, the vast majority of crimes don't produce evidence that rises to the level you call for.

After all, if my next door neighbour barged into my house and beat me up, the only evidence would be my visible injuries and my statement that it was my neighbour.

I'm not sure if I'd prefer a society where he would be convicted, or where he wouldn't.

Re: Accused murderer wins right to check source code of DNA testing kit

#177

Post by bdavisx »

nickodell wrote: post #158
breck wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lol. If it would take 8.5 yrs to review, it's probably god awful, and should never ever ever be used to convict someone of such a crime. My prediction: this firm will probably try to get removed from the case, rather than open source their shitty code. Source: I've worked on MATLAB codebases for various genomics research projects in the past.

>My prediction: this firm will probably try to get removed from the case, rather than open source their shitty code. That isn't necessarily their choice. The prosecutors will make the decision about whether to withdraw the DNA evidence. They probably won't, given that they would need to give the defendant a new trial, which could lead to an accused murderer getting off. A bad look for any prosecutor. More to the poin…

It would also give every person convicted using their software an incentive to open an appeal.

Re: Accused murderer wins right to check source code of DNA testing kit

#178

Post by lwigo »

jdironman wrote: post #152
lwigo wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When the officer shows up and swears under oath that he "calibrated it that morning" it's not so easy. :shrug:

Temps vary throughout the day.

A rural small town judge probably doesn't have the best insight into that, just that Corporal Bubba said he calibrated it so it must've been right.

I know, this is exceedingly cynical.

Re: Accused murderer wins right to check source code of DNA testing kit

#179

Post by tekromancr »

boomboomsubban wrote: post #143
geocar wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you knew someone was guilty, because of a preponderance of other evidence you have the utmost faith in, such as a professional law enforcement officers’ eyewitness account, and the DNA testing vendor you were evaluating said “not guilty”, what exactly would you expect to happen?

That the eyewitness account would be discarded, they make for terrible evidence anyway.

I think it is REALLY hard to overstate how dangerously naive a view of the american justice system that is

Re: Accused murderer wins right to check source code of DNA testing kit

#180

Post by vaduz »

unnouinceput wrote: post #45
jonnycomputer wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who is "they"

Probably "they" refer to prosecution. And yeah, why is prosecution going with that lab/software only? One reason is probably the DNA available for more testing is not enough / one testing could been done reliable with DNA taken from crime scene. Other reason might be behind the scenes incentives, which seems is the defense strategy here

Even if you had plenty of DNA material, going with multiple labs comes with a risk that one of them comes with a "no match" result - and that is something that is supposed to be disclosed to defense as potential exculpatory evidence - and is a nice source of reasonable doubt for a jury. It's something that is terribly inconvenient for the prosecution when someone has already been charged with the crime...
Post reply on HN