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

Forensics Gone Wrong: When DNA Snares the Innocent (2016)

science.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 119 posts

Re: Forensics Gone Wrong: When DNA Snares the Innocent (2016)

#101

Post by SpicyLemonZest »

giantg2 wrote: post #96
SpicyLemonZest wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I guess that's kinda my point. The Innocence Project should be one of the forefront groups opposing such fishing expeditions. Instead, the article says, the head of the Idaho Innocence Project suggested testing Michael Usry based only on a familial match, because a positive result might have helped get their client Christopher Tapp out of jail. I can't make sense of that, and it certainly doesn't seem consistent with…

And my point is that it's different if a defendant subpoenas you to create reasonable doubt vs the government issuing a warrant without true probable cause.

Is it? Any sort of DNA match falsely implicating you in a murder seems like it would be a big problem, even if it's a defendant looking for reasonable doubt who's seeking it. How comfortable would you be explaining that story to your family, friends, and boss? (Without further reforms, what would stop the government from treating the defendant's match as probable cause and arresting you?)

Re: Forensics Gone Wrong: When DNA Snares the Innocent (2016)

#102

Post by phpisthebest »

kevinmchugh wrote: post #76
phpisthebest wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

so there are 2 conclusions to draw from this 1. the federal law enforcement, and prosecutors are prefect humans that only ever go after the guilty 2. The system is sooo skewed in favor of the government that fighting them is pointless, likely due to immense corruption in the system it self Since no humans are perfect, I think the stronger case is for #2 to be reality

3. Federal prosecutors are resource-constrained and don't like to lose, so they only prosecute the surest cases. Imagine you offer a great soccer player a million dollars if he can shoot 50 goals in a row, and he gets to choose the defenders and goalies. He's probably going to choose children to go against him.

Well in this context it would be the poor, and people that lack education. People that lack the resources to fight back.

still not something we should be proud of

Re: Forensics Gone Wrong: When DNA Snares the Innocent (2016)

#103

Post by phpisthebest »

robocat wrote: post #77
phpisthebest wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

so there are 2 conclusions to draw from this 1. the federal law enforcement, and prosecutors are prefect humans that only ever go after the guilty 2. The system is sooo skewed in favor of the government that fighting them is pointless, likely due to immense corruption in the system it self Since no humans are perfect, I think the stronger case is for #2 to be reality

The Japanese use #1. 99.9% of criminal cases that go to trial in Japan end in a guilty verdict. So maybe some humans are perfect enough?

Unlikely, it more a deference to authority. you can not honestly believe that 99.9% all cases in Japan are decided justly and fairly and there are statically zero false conviction in the system.

Re: Forensics Gone Wrong: When DNA Snares the Innocent (2016)

#104

Post by jMyles »

cmiller1 wrote: post #60
jMyles wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Trust the science", a refrain we of course heard over and over again used to justify questionable (and often coincidentally highly profitable) interventions during the COVID-19 pandemic, is already a contradiction in terms. The entire basis for being so enamored with science, as so many of us are, is that it provides a method for establishing facts without needing trust. Despite the noise to the contrary, we live in…

> justify questionable (and often coincidentally highly profitable) interventions What interventions might those be? I'm only aware of the interventions that time and time again have been proven to be highly effective that were implemented here, masking, improved guidelines for hygiene, distancing, and vaccination.

I mostly mean lockdowns, which were a spectacular failure - they caused both a delay in endemic equilibrium in the low-risk tier and also an increase in household transmission, which put the high-risk tier at increased likelihood of contracting the virus early. This is not even to mention the collateral damage, which is being studied by Suneta Gupta and other epidemiologists here: https://collateralglobal.org/.

Lockdowns were roundly rejected by an enormous chorus of the top experts in relevant fields, and yet somehow the messaging was spun to make it sound like there was significant debate. And of course, no actual data was ever made available by proponents for the rest of us to even consider, let alone replicate. This is what I mean by the "trust the science" message being a contradiction in terms.

Of the interventions you mention: masking was not shown "time and time again" to be highly - or even moderately - effective. The dearth of rigorous study on the matter is bizarre. The Bangladesh study showed no statistically significant effect for cloth masks, and very modest effects for others - certainly nowhere near enough to justify mandates.

I'm not very aware of the literature on distancing - can you provide sources to research which you think shows that it has "time and time again proven to be highly effective"?

Vaccination of course appeared incredible out of the gate, but we now know that there was significant unblinding during phase III, and the real-world results have not lived up to either the safety or efficacy claims. So, while the vaccines are a great achievement, I'm not sure we can draw the conclusions that the scientific method was as rigorously adopted as we might hope in the context of this discussion about the pitfalls of "trust the science" in matters of public policy. Instead, profit seems to have motivated a relatively shoddy series of rollouts. Moreover, the fallout over the disastrous booster approval cost us a number of experts who resigned in protest (obviously Gruber and Krause are the most notable, but there were many others both at FDA and in academia). So I think it still belongs in the 'loss' column as science-based policy goes.

Re: Forensics Gone Wrong: When DNA Snares the Innocent (2016)

#105

Post by someuser2345 »

cmiller1 wrote: post #60
jMyles wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Trust the science", a refrain we of course heard over and over again used to justify questionable (and often coincidentally highly profitable) interventions during the COVID-19 pandemic, is already a contradiction in terms. The entire basis for being so enamored with science, as so many of us are, is that it provides a method for establishing facts without needing trust. Despite the noise to the contrary, we live in…

> justify questionable (and often coincidentally highly profitable) interventions What interventions might those be? I'm only aware of the interventions that time and time again have been proven to be highly effective that were implemented here, masking, improved guidelines for hygiene, distancing, and vaccination.

> vaccination.

One of the vaccines was recalled due to causing potentially fatal blood clots: https://www.pfpdocs.com/jj-vaccine-recall

Re: Forensics Gone Wrong: When DNA Snares the Innocent (2016)

#106

Post by KMag »

bradyd wrote: post #29
throw0101d wrote: post #13

See also: > The Phantom of Heilbronn, often alternatively referred to as the "Woman Without a Face", was a hypothesized unknown female serial killer whose existence was inferred from DNA evidence found at numerous crime scenes in Austria, France and Germany from 1993 to 2009. The six murders among these included that of police officer Michèle Kiesewetter, in Heilbronn, Germany on 25 April 2007. > The only connection…

There was also the case where a DNA test of a woman's children showed that they did not share any of her DNA. Social Services was threatening to take them away from her. When she had another child, the court ordered an officer to be present during the birth and collect DNA from both of them at that time. Even still the DNA "proved" she was not the mother. It was only after another similar case was discovered that the…

> There was also the case where a DNA test of a woman's children showed that they did not share any of her DNA.

The DNA information did show relation, but suggested that she was the aunt rather than the mother of the children. In some sense, due to mosaicism, the mother was her own sister. One "sister" showed up in the cheek swabs, and the other "sister" produced the eggs.

Re: Forensics Gone Wrong: When DNA Snares the Innocent (2016)

#107

Post by KMag »

scorpio8902 wrote: post #71

This is a really old story. Here are the updates: Tapp was exonerated in 2019: https://innocenceproject.org/cases/christopher-tapp/ Tapp receives $11.7 settlement from the City of Idaho Falls, ID, USA in 2022: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/christopher-tapp-wrongful-convi... Tapp dies in Las Vegas, USA in 2023: https://www.eastidahonews.com/2023/11/chris-tapp-idaho-falls...

$11.7 million, not $11.7.

Re: Forensics Gone Wrong: When DNA Snares the Innocent (2016)

#108

Post by kevinmchugh »

phpisthebest wrote: post #102
kevinmchugh wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

3. Federal prosecutors are resource-constrained and don't like to lose, so they only prosecute the surest cases. Imagine you offer a great soccer player a million dollars if he can shoot 50 goals in a row, and he gets to choose the defenders and goalies. He's probably going to choose children to go against him.

Well in this context it would be the poor, and people that lack education. People that lack the resources to fight back. still not something we should be proud of

Or, look at the Sam Bankman-Fried prosecution. The DoJ could've gone after a lot more people, but chose to use them as assets to get SBF, the kingpin. The beneficiaries here are the mid-tier criminals.

Re: Forensics Gone Wrong: When DNA Snares the Innocent (2016)

#109

Post by giantg2 »

SpicyLemonZest wrote: post #101
giantg2 wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And my point is that it's different if a defendant subpoenas you to create reasonable doubt vs the government issuing a warrant without true probable cause.

Is it? Any sort of DNA match falsely implicating you in a murder seems like it would be a big problem, even if it's a defendant looking for reasonable doubt who's seeking it. How comfortable would you be explaining that story to your family, friends, and boss? (Without further reforms, what would stop the government from treating the defendant's match as probable cause and arresting you?)

Even now, they have to have more than just a DNA match. They have to show evidence of the other elements of the crime. They have issues with evaluating affidavits to ensure they have true probable cause, but that's not an issue with using DNA in this manner.

Re: Forensics Gone Wrong: When DNA Snares the Innocent (2016)

#110

Post by [deleted] »

jMyles wrote: post #104
cmiller1 wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> justify questionable (and often coincidentally highly profitable) interventions What interventions might those be? I'm only aware of the interventions that time and time again have been proven to be highly effective that were implemented here, masking, improved guidelines for hygiene, distancing, and vaccination.

I mostly mean lockdowns, which were a spectacular failure - they caused both a delay in endemic equilibrium in the low-risk tier and also an increase in household transmission, which put the high-risk tier at increased likelihood of contracting the virus early. This is not even to mention the collateral damage, which is being studied by Suneta Gupta and other epidemiologists here: https://collateralglobal.org/ . Lock…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN