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

Detectives Just Used DNA to Solve a 1956 Double Homicide

npr.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 69 posts

Re: Detectives Just Used DNA to Solve a 1956 Double Homicide

#11

Post by LorenPechtel »

TheJoeMan wrote: post #7
BugsJustFindMe wrote: post #4

Ignoring for a moment the obvious hitch that sperm does not automatically equal murder, there's also the problem that DNA forensics suffers from the same fakery problem that other criminal forensic techniques suffer from especially when samples are old and mixed https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20727733-500-fallible... DNA matching from a decades old mixed tissue slide is not an exact process and many factors f…

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.

Re: Detectives Just Used DNA to Solve a 1956 Double Homicide

#12

Post by vmception »

temp8964 wrote: post #6
BugsJustFindMe wrote: post #4

Ignoring for a moment the obvious hitch that sperm does not automatically equal murder, there's also the problem that DNA forensics suffers from the same fakery problem that other criminal forensic techniques suffer from especially when samples are old and mixed https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20727733-500-fallible... DNA matching from a decades old mixed tissue slide is not an exact process and many factors f…

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.

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.

Re: Detectives Just Used DNA to Solve a 1956 Double Homicide

#13

Post by [deleted] »

vmception wrote: post #12
temp8964 wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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 con…

[deleted]

Re: Detectives Just Used DNA to Solve a 1956 Double Homicide

#16

Post by uvesten »

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.

Re: Detectives Just Used DNA to Solve a 1956 Double Homicide

#17

Post by fairity »

BugsJustFindMe wrote: post #4

Ignoring for a moment the obvious hitch that sperm does not automatically equal murder, there's also the problem that DNA forensics suffers from the same fakery problem that other criminal forensic techniques suffer from especially when samples are old and mixed https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20727733-500-fallible... DNA matching from a decades old mixed tissue slide is not an exact process and many factors f…

> 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.

Re: Detectives Just Used DNA to Solve a 1956 Double Homicide

#18

Post by boomboomsubban »

BugsJustFindMe wrote: post #4

Ignoring for a moment the obvious hitch that sperm does not automatically equal murder, there's also the problem that DNA forensics suffers from the same fakery problem that other criminal forensic techniques suffer from especially when samples are old and mixed https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20727733-500-fallible... DNA matching from a decades old mixed tissue slide is not an exact process and many factors f…

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.

Re: Detectives Just Used DNA to Solve a 1956 Double Homicide

#19

Post by lolinder »

vorticalbox wrote: post #10
ChrisKnott wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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.

Re: Detectives Just Used DNA to Solve a 1956 Double Homicide

#20

Post by lolinder »

boomboomsubban wrote: post #18
BugsJustFindMe wrote: post #4

Ignoring for a moment the obvious hitch that sperm does not automatically equal murder, there's also the problem that DNA forensics suffers from the same fakery problem that other criminal forensic techniques suffer from especially when samples are old and mixed https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20727733-500-fallible... DNA matching from a decades old mixed tissue slide is not an exact process and many factors f…

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 assum…

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.
Post reply on HN