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

21–30 of 69 posts

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

#21

Post by vmception »

thaumasiotes wrote: post #3
liquidify wrote: post #2

The first thing that comes to mind after reading this article is that they don't have enough evidence to conclude that the fact that there were sperm in the victim that weren't from her boyfriend actually means that they were murdered by the creator of said sperm. It seems likely, but calling the case 'solved' just based on that is a bit of a stretch to me. Maybe the article is leaving out some important details.

Come on, we all know that any woman who cheats on her boyfriend is immediately murdered by the same guy she cheated with.

Just like we know that the spouse that has a life insurance policy opened on them is immediately murdered by the surviving spouse, instead of the life insurance agent

We don't! We just assume!

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

#22

Post by moron4hire »

fairity wrote: post #17
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.

The threat of punishment has never been shown to be a deterrent to crime.

EDIT: I would have thought this was a well-known issue by now, but for those who are disagreeing, "punishments do not deter crime" is also the opinion of the National Institute of Justice: https://nij.ojp.gov/topics/articles/five-things-about-deterr...

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

#23

Post by vmception »

What state restrictions on scouring DNA databases would you like? The article points out how incoming state laws would make this investigation impossible, but it turns out it was just a few states being referenced.

I think this needs to be treated as property of the individual as well, or even of an individual's estate, and there must be consent granted for each use and compensation for it. Consent can be revokable and a record of the consent's state should be attached to every piece of data.

It leaves the avenue open for this same kind of investigation to occur.

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

#24

Post by jiqiren »

lolinder wrote: post #19
vorticalbox wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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, an…

The family agreed to help the police figure it out.

Maybe their reaction to learning the news was more like "yeah this makes sense - dad was an abusive asshole my whole life. At least I wasn't killed".

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

#25

Post by julienreszka »

ALittleLight wrote: post #15
drewcoo wrote: post #14

NPR, totally not a state propaganda organ, runs pro-forensic "science" propaganda. Why does this not surprise me anymore?

Are you against forensic science or do you doubt the validity of it?

There is plenty of evidence that DNA tests are unreliable. https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/03/forensics-gone-wrong...

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

#26

Post by zzt123 »

ALittleLight wrote: post #15
drewcoo wrote: post #14

NPR, totally not a state propaganda organ, runs pro-forensic "science" propaganda. Why does this not surprise me anymore?

Are you against forensic science or do you doubt the validity of it?

Much like cryptography, the science of DNA is good, but the roll-your-own DNA forensics implementations have had issues.

https://www.propublica.org/article/thousands-of-criminal-cas...

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/06/a-reaso...

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/21/opinion/the-dangers-of-dn...

A quote from The NY Times article:

“The first two suspects’ DNA was part of the mixture, and most labs correctly matched their DNA to the evidence. However, 74 labs wrongly said the sample included DNA evidence from the third suspect, an “innocent person” who should have been cleared of the hypothetical felony.”

There were 108 labs tested. 74 of 108 fingered an innocent person.

As long as DNA forensics processes are open source, we should be good, because the questionable component is the implementation, not the base science.

But, closed source DNA forensics is dangerous, I think.

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

#27

Post by rightbyte »

moron4hire wrote: post #22
fairity wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

The threat of punishment has never been shown to be a deterrent to crime. EDIT: I would have thought this was a well-known issue by now, but for those who are disagreeing, "punishments do not deter crime" is also the opinion of the National Institute of Justice: https://nij.ojp.gov/topics/articles/five-things-about-deterr...

Do more drivers turn right at red lights in the US than in say UK were it is illegal?

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

#29

Post by valuearb »

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…

So you think the accused killers family would be much happier if they found out he didn’t kill either of them, just had sex with the dying girl and left her to die?

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

#30

Post by moron4hire »

rightbyte wrote: post #27
moron4hire wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The threat of punishment has never been shown to be a deterrent to crime. EDIT: I would have thought this was a well-known issue by now, but for those who are disagreeing, "punishments do not deter crime" is also the opinion of the National Institute of Justice: https://nij.ojp.gov/topics/articles/five-things-about-deterr...

Do more drivers turn right at red lights in the US than in say UK were it is illegal?

The legality of the action is not the only difference between those two locales. A right turn on red is significantly more dangerous in the UK than in the US.
Post reply on HN