Detectives Just Used DNA to Solve a 1956 Double Homicide • Hacker News Board

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

#41

Post by syshum » Sun, Jun 13, 2021, 1:23 AM UTC

krrrh wrote: post #33

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...

I think you’re getting downvotes for the statement “never been shown”. It’s an overly broad claim, and even the link you posted talks more about the severity of punishment being a weaker deterrent than the certainty of being caught (and punished). There’s still no doubt that if theft was suddenly not punished at all then there would be more theft. From other reading I’ve done the consistency of punishment is more imp…

No statements like that are down-voted because it challenges the generally accepted narrative of criminal justice, never under estimate the normalcy and confirmation bias

People HAVE TO believe that the prison system is a deterrent because if not then the unethical actions, and inhumane treatment of criminals, specifically in the US Prison system, can no longer be justified in their minds.

Thus they simply can not allow themselves to believe anything other than the propaganda they have been feed all of their lives that we need to put humans in a small cage "for the greater good" even if all they did was grow a plant unapproved by the government

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

#42

Post by thatguy0900 » Sun, Jun 13, 2021, 1:32 AM UTC

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...

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/san-franci... Seems to be a direct counter example. Punishments for shoplifting was effectively made nonexistent and then organized crime rings sprung up to begin shoplifting.

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

#43

Post by throwawayboise » Sun, Jun 13, 2021, 1:43 AM UTC

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.

How do you punish a dead man?

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

#44

Post by aYsY4dDQ2NrcNzA » Sun, Jun 13, 2021, 2:04 AM UTC

dzhiurgis wrote: post #28

What would happen if I swiped my murder weapon thru rack of clothes in a second hand shop?

Unabomber collected hair from public restrooms to sprinkle in with his mailbombs.

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

#45

Post by valuearb » Sun, Jun 13, 2021, 2:08 AM UTC

vmception wrote: post #32

valuearb wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

That's where your mind went. In this article, it would be just as easy for them to have had consensual sex beforehand. The feelings of the family is not a factor in investigating and prosecuting the right people.

> “ 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.”

You posited he could have merely raped the dying victim (semen isn’t left by “fiddling around”). I ask you again whether hit matters if he was a rapist-murderer or merely a rapist of bound murder victims.

Reasonable doubt doesn’t mean constructing convoluted scenarios to explain how he left his semen in her without raping or murdering her. Occams Razor falls very hard on the obvious answer here.

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

#46

Post by BugsJustFindMe » Sun, Jun 13, 2021, 2:36 AM UTC

jiqiren wrote: post #24

lolinder wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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".

The police going to ask them in the first place was a wrong decision. A family minding their own business doing nothing wrong should not be burdened with someone showing up at their door saying "we think that you're the children of a murder rapist. If you don't help us that's definitely what we're going to conclude. If you do help us there's a chance that we'll conclude it anyway, but you never know. He's dead now so we have no requirement to overcome a legal defense. What say you?"

That's known as a devil's bargain.

> Maybe their reaction to learning

A more likely outcome is irreparable trauma.

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

#47

Post by BugsJustFindMe » Sun, Jun 13, 2021, 2:44 AM UTC

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 murders family

It's rather important that we say "accused's family". It's irresponsible to label someone a murderer without giving them an honest opportunity for defense.

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

#48

Post by gverrilla » Sun, Jun 13, 2021, 4:36 AM UTC

BugsJustFindMe wrote: post #46

jiqiren wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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".

The police going to ask them in the first place was a wrong decision. A family minding their own business doing nothing wrong should not be burdened with someone showing up at their door saying "we think that you're the children of a murder rapist. If you don't help us that's definitely what we're going to conclude. If you do help us there's a chance that we'll conclude it anyway, but you never know. He's dead now so…

Are you saying you wouldn't like to know if your father were a rapist-murderer? I don't get it, really. And I'm pretty sure it can help those people learn better about themselves and their past. This is why they accepted.

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

#49

Post by bsder » Sun, Jun 13, 2021, 5:14 AM UTC

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…

In addition, why is it that these people were missed on the initial investigations?

For example, the Golden State Killer had a whole set of characteristics that should have narrowed it down to him.

I suspect this case is similar.

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

#50

Post by Roy78 » Sun, Jun 13, 2021, 5:23 AM UTC

I've personally followed Andrew Singer's/BODE's work and have been present in his (and other forensic genealogists) presentations to the forensics community. I was literally in the audience 2 days ago for another of his. I am a professional Forensic Scientist who is specialized in DNA. My educational background is in biochemistry & molecular genetics. Feel free to ask me anything.

There is a lot of misunderstandings in this thread so far. For one, on the idea that "sperm does not automatically equal murder," is of course logically true. DNA evidence doesn't equate that point, but it does suggest that there is a putative perpetrator who could be responsible for the crime. It's not up to forensic scientists to decide who committed what crimes. We can tell that the person was "there." It's up to the detectives to argue/figure out, and ultimately the judicial system to decide the outcome/verdict.

She was raped and killed, who's DNA was on the vaginal swab? Most likely the perpetrator.

Secondly, to suggest that modern DNA forensic science is questionable is farce. There have been major issues with interpretation in the past with non-accredited crime labs/analysts/methods/persons making bogus conclusions, but these days, and for the last 15+ years, has just plain not happened. If there were unqualified interpretations they would be thrown out of the courthouse in a nanosecond.

The absoluteness of DNA mixture interpretations is getting better and better. Google "probabilistic genotyping." A human can reasonably look at data and discern multiple DNA profiles up to a few people when it comes to certain limited mixtures. Prob. Gen. software can deconvolute up to about 10 distinct people in a DNA mixture. It's basically brute force computing. I bring this up because some of the examples other's posted here happened when such tech didn't exist and bogus interpretations were going on.

As for the ethics point. I have met with many victims personally. Not one has ever not returned genuine overly emotional gratefulness of our efforts. Many brave victims become spokespeople and support for other victims. They tour my lab all the time in wonder. I can't tell you how many cases we've solved. DNA evidence, investigations, then a line up, then "that's the one!" happen all the time. These would have never happened without DNA evidence.