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

291–300 of 520 posts

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

#291

Post by simple_phrases »

Ma8ee wrote: post #275
heavyset_go wrote: post #234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Conviction rates are surprisingly high in a lot of the first world.

I’m not sure what conclusion we should draw from that isolated fact. It can mean that people are convicted on too weak evidence, and it can mean that people are only put on trial when the evidence already is very strong.

I think we can look at the plea bargain rates and assume that most people do not have the resources to stand trial, and thus plea out whether or not the charges against them are valid.

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

#292

Post by m463 »

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…

Imagine what an innocent man goes through.

If I was innocent, I'd be 100% certain that the system was screwed up, and if DNA evidence "proved" it, I'd want to look at the code too.

I remember reading about the husband who was falsely accused of murdering his wife, and it was very very sad.

https://www.texasmonthly.com/politics/the-innocent-man-part-...

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

#293

Post by caconym_ »

tsimionescu wrote: post #289
caconym_ wrote: post #247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, there need to be consequences for this. The alternative is empowering people and corporations to destroy lives with impunity in pursuit of their own goals, as long as they can later claim it wasn’t intentional. What really pisses me off is how we fail again and again to ask the question of whether these entities should have been doing what they were doing in the first place, if it even can be done safely. Faceb…

A lot of people respond to this as if the fact that it would be nice if forensics worked justifies treating them as if they do. 'What do you want them to do, stop looking for fingerprints and DNA evidence?' Yes! Just like I don't want them to use 'lie detectors' or hire psychics.

Exactly! It’s pure wishful thinking, and in a lot of cases those wishes are (at best) frighteningly amoral in context.

It’s like a hack to get around the whole “reasonable doubt” thing: just sequester all that pesky doubt in a black box so that people can’t see it, and if anyone asks just play dumb.

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

#294

Post by Thorentis »

> If TrueAllele is found wanting, presumably that will not affect the dozen individuals said to have been exonerated by the software.

Buried right at the end, but an interesting thought. It would depend on the individual cases, but if there was a whole body of evidence vs. one DNA test, surely these cases would need to be retried?

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

#295

Post by anomaloustho »

WaitWaitWha wrote: post #288

The tone of this thread is leaning to "forensics evil, government lackeys out to get the little guy". In the USA, all sides can call and rely on their own forensics. There is no government mandated & approved single-source-of-truth (with some minor exceptions). > Forensic labs and companies are expert witnesses with black box processes and the incentive to protect the authority of their profession. This statement is…

> Any tools used are can be requested to be examined, including software.

Out of curiosity, if this is a common occurrence that is willfully obeyed by all vendors and parties involved. Could you shed some light on why this vendor is resisting?

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

#296

Post by WmyEE0UsWAwC2i »

ChrisLomont wrote: post #244
carlmr wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd get an expert witness in there to testify basically that. I also don't think you should code anything mission critical like this in Matlab. It's a decent language for prototyping, not for production.

The numerics in Matlab are far better than pretty much any developer can produce in production. This is why Matlab is used in production - it's vastly more reliable than people rebuilding the things it is good at by hand for bespoke solutions.

True. But I believe this is a case where correctness and clarity are the paramount concerns.

There should be a public reference implantation of these methods if they are going to be used in court.

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

#297

Post by Falling3 »

WaitWaitWha wrote: post #288

The tone of this thread is leaning to "forensics evil, government lackeys out to get the little guy". In the USA, all sides can call and rely on their own forensics. There is no government mandated & approved single-source-of-truth (with some minor exceptions). > Forensic labs and companies are expert witnesses with black box processes and the incentive to protect the authority of their profession. This statement is…

> In the USA, all sides can call and rely on their own forensics.

... to the extent their financial resources allow.

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

#298

Post by tsimionescu »

JoeAltmaier wrote: post #219
salamanderman wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Grossly oversimplifying it, but it is what my lawyer uncles say, and is consistent with what I saw as a juror on a civil trial involving many topics I'm personally an expert in, expert witnesses are paid to lie on the stand. At the very least they are paid very very well (the amount they were paid was emphasized at the trial I was at) to state only the information consistent with what the person paying them wanted to…

They answer any question put to them. The defense has to ask the right questions of course. I know expert witnesses. They are of impeccable character, and will seek to educate as well as they are allowed.

You know some expert witnesses. I doubt you have a good acquaintance of a significant percentage of all expert witnesses.

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

#299

Post by clarle »

Thorentis wrote: post #294

> If TrueAllele is found wanting, presumably that will not affect the dozen individuals said to have been exonerated by the software. Buried right at the end, but an interesting thought. It would depend on the individual cases, but if there was a whole body of evidence vs. one DNA test, surely these cases would need to be retried?

IANAL but if the individuals were already found not guilty, I think double jeopardy laws would apply.

The prosecution wouldn't be able to try again unless they made an appeal that there's a substantially different crime.

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

#300

Post by tsimionescu »

JoeAltmaier wrote: post #274
gamblor956 wrote: post #236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You've just moved the goal posts from someone who can be crossed in court to someone who can't, which is worse, because then you have now way of verifying that the "independent" certifier is actually independent or that the certification was properly done. You still need to allow the "independent certification" to be examined in court to validate both the independence and the certification. The means testimony on the…

The skepticism has to end somewhere. Else ever court case becomes an infinite regressing into doubting the foundations of everything. Of course self-certification is not the best. To bring up that straw man (as most of these posts do) is not advancing the conversation.

That straw man is essentially the status quo at the moment...
Post reply on HN