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

A nuclear weapons lab helped crack a serial-killer case

undark.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 26 posts

Re: A nuclear weapons lab helped crack a serial-killer case

#11

Post by pif »

perihelions wrote: post #4

This article cheerleads the policework, but I'm not convinced it's sound to introduce highly novel forensic techniques in court trials. So you validated your technique with a control sample from a pig; that's scientific rigor, that's sufficient for a scientific journal paper. I don't buy that's sufficient to put a person in prison for life. One stray cross-contamination of lab equipment would invalidate everything. R…

> hat's scientific rigor, that's sufficient for a scientific journal paper. I don't buy that's sufficient to put a person in prison for life.

It may be sufficient for a scientific journal paper, but if it is not sufficient to put a person in prison for life, then it's not scientific rigor!

Re: A nuclear weapons lab helped crack a serial-killer case

#12

Post by IshKebab »

pif wrote: post #11
perihelions wrote: post #4

This article cheerleads the policework, but I'm not convinced it's sound to introduce highly novel forensic techniques in court trials. So you validated your technique with a control sample from a pig; that's scientific rigor, that's sufficient for a scientific journal paper. I don't buy that's sufficient to put a person in prison for life. One stray cross-contamination of lab equipment would invalidate everything. R…

> hat's scientific rigor, that's sufficient for a scientific journal paper. I don't buy that's sufficient to put a person in prison for life. It may be sufficient for a scientific journal paper, but if it is not sufficient to put a person in prison for life, then it's not scientific rigor!

The bar for scientific paper should be far lower than the bar for imprisoning someone for life.

Re: A nuclear weapons lab helped crack a serial-killer case

#14

Post by bombcar »

iseanstevens wrote: post #13
GeorgeRichard wrote: post #6

> NUCLEAR WEAPONS laboratories don’t often help solve serial-killer cases. Because mass murder is their specialty...

Serial killer < Parallel killer

Series-parallel is more their speed.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGM-30_Minuteman

Re: A nuclear weapons lab helped crack a serial-killer case

#15

Post by Eddy_Viscosity2 »

pif wrote: post #11
perihelions wrote: post #4

This article cheerleads the policework, but I'm not convinced it's sound to introduce highly novel forensic techniques in court trials. So you validated your technique with a control sample from a pig; that's scientific rigor, that's sufficient for a scientific journal paper. I don't buy that's sufficient to put a person in prison for life. One stray cross-contamination of lab equipment would invalidate everything. R…

> hat's scientific rigor, that's sufficient for a scientific journal paper. I don't buy that's sufficient to put a person in prison for life. It may be sufficient for a scientific journal paper, but if it is not sufficient to put a person in prison for life, then it's not scientific rigor!

Scientific rigor is built up over time by different scientists replicating and re-proving and building on the work of others. It's never a single paper. So the OC is right. Before this should be used to decide someone's life, there should be a larger foundation of evidence.

Re: A nuclear weapons lab helped crack a serial-killer case

#16

Post by boomboomsubban »

ceejayoz wrote: post #10
_dain_ wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

if the Replication Crisis ever comes for criminal forensics there will be hell to pay.

Oh, it’s here. https://www.propublica.org/article/understanding-junk-scienc...

"It's here" being an article published fourteen years after a watershed debunking of many forensics staples.

Fun fact, if anybody was convicted after 2009 using some of the junk science in that report, and they later try to appeal based on the junk science, the appeal judge can say "that science was already known to be flawed during your original trial. You should have challenged it then."

Re: A nuclear weapons lab helped crack a serial-killer case

#17

Post by ianai »

perihelions wrote: post #4

This article cheerleads the policework, but I'm not convinced it's sound to introduce highly novel forensic techniques in court trials. So you validated your technique with a control sample from a pig; that's scientific rigor, that's sufficient for a scientific journal paper. I don't buy that's sufficient to put a person in prison for life. One stray cross-contamination of lab equipment would invalidate everything. R…

Judges generally get statistical significance.

Re: A nuclear weapons lab helped crack a serial-killer case

#18

Post by tzs »

perihelions wrote: post #4

This article cheerleads the policework, but I'm not convinced it's sound to introduce highly novel forensic techniques in court trials. So you validated your technique with a control sample from a pig; that's scientific rigor, that's sufficient for a scientific journal paper. I don't buy that's sufficient to put a person in prison for life. One stray cross-contamination of lab equipment would invalidate everything. R…

> Then why'd he accept a plea deal for life? Represented by a public defender.

That doesn't seem very likely. Prosecutors were not seeking the death penalty so life would be the worst outcome he would get if he went to trial and lost.

> That's a striking resource asymmetry: million-dollar national lab work for the prosecution, 30 minutes of paper-skimming for the defense.

Public defenders spend considerably more time and effort than 30 minutes of paper-skimming when the charge is multiple murders.

Re: A nuclear weapons lab helped crack a serial-killer case

#19

Post by omgJustTest »

perihelions wrote: post #4

This article cheerleads the policework, but I'm not convinced it's sound to introduce highly novel forensic techniques in court trials. So you validated your technique with a control sample from a pig; that's scientific rigor, that's sufficient for a scientific journal paper. I don't buy that's sufficient to put a person in prison for life. One stray cross-contamination of lab equipment would invalidate everything. R…

It also doesn't mention recent history with the labs: they have private management & a lot of bloat these days.

Livermore National Lab LLC conducts the management of the labs since ~2005 and the half-life of a physicist there is like 10years... ie 10years ago they had 2x the scientists. Now they have 10x admins.

"Administrative costs at Lawrence Livermore have similarly swelled. In 2009 LLNS received $47 million and $30.9 million in 2008. The most the University of California received for running Lawrence Livermore was $6.75 million in 2005."[1]

[1] https://aps.org/publications/apsnews/201006/losalamos.cfm [2] https://www.huffpost.com/entry/privatization-dogma-confr_b_7... [3] https://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/11/us/11bclivermore.html?_r=...

Re: A nuclear weapons lab helped crack a serial-killer case

#20

Post by perihelions »

tzs wrote: post #18
perihelions wrote: post #4

This article cheerleads the policework, but I'm not convinced it's sound to introduce highly novel forensic techniques in court trials. So you validated your technique with a control sample from a pig; that's scientific rigor, that's sufficient for a scientific journal paper. I don't buy that's sufficient to put a person in prison for life. One stray cross-contamination of lab equipment would invalidate everything. R…

> Then why'd he accept a plea deal for life? Represented by a public defender. That doesn't seem very likely. Prosecutors were not seeking the death penalty so life would be the worst outcome he would get if he went to trial and lost. > That's a striking resource asymmetry: million-dollar national lab work for the prosecution, 30 minutes of paper-skimming for the defense. Public defenders spend considerably more time…

- "Prosecutors were not seeking the death penalty so life would be the worst outcome he would get if he went to trial and lost."

Right: he accepted a plea for the same maximum penalty the prosecutors would have sought at trial. That's not strategic.

Post reply on HN