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

51–60 of 69 posts

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

#51

Post by vmception »

valuearb wrote: post #45
vmception wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 constr…

You will never understand what I wrote.

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

#52

Post by syshum »

thatguy0900 wrote: post #42
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...

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.

The problem with that is the government has no only removed prison as a punishment, but also removed all possible punishment as they have refused any accountability at all and disallows the use of force to defend property.

That is far far far different than what the OP is talking about

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

#53

Post by nobodyandproud »

Roy78 wrote: post #50

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…

Upvoted, but even large cities continue to have problems with labs making mistakes.

That is, the science is sound but I feel private citizens (whether accused or accusing) need second and third independent verifying just to be sure.

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

#54

Post by valuearb »

vmception wrote: post #51
valuearb wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> “ 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 constr…

You will never understand what I wrote.

Them you should reread what you wrote, maybe out loud, to recognize how unclear it was.

Being able to clearly write your thoughts is an important skill that can be improved with practice.

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

#55

Post by Someone »

throwawayboise wrote: post #43
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.

How do you punish a dead man?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posthumous_execution (with several historical examples, among which https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cadaver_Synod: “the ecclesiastical trial of Pope Formosus, who had been dead for about seven months, in the Basilica of St. John Lateran in Rome during January 897. The trial was conducted by Pope Stephen VI, the successor to Formosus' successor, Pope Boniface VI. Stephen had Formosus' corpse exhumed and brought to the papal court for judgment”. I guess the judgment was “this case stinks”))

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

#56

Post by kortilla »

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...

The very first statement in that link directly contradicts what you said. It says:

> The certainty of being caught is a vastly more powerful deterrent than the punishment.

The “certainty of being caught” is the threat of punishment. You’ve gotten it confused with the severity of punishment.

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

#57

Post by BugsJustFindMe »

Someone wrote: post #55
throwawayboise wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do you punish a dead man?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posthumous_execution (with several historical examples, among which https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cadaver_Synod : “the ecclesiastical trial of Pope Formosus, who had been dead for about seven months, in the Basilica of St. John Lateran in Rome during January 897. The trial was conducted by Pope Stephen VI, the successor to Formosus' successor, Pope Boniface VI. Stephen had Formosus' corp…

That's a performance which doesn't actually punish the dead person because the dead person is...well...dead.

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

#58

Post by moron4hire »

kortilla wrote: post #56
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...

The very first statement in that link directly contradicts what you said. It says: > The certainty of being caught is a vastly more powerful deterrent than the punishment. The “certainty of being caught” is the threat of punishment. You’ve gotten it confused with the severity of punishment.

The line you quoted clearly makes a distinction between getting caught and being punished. Punishments are not the only possible response to someone having committed and being convicted of a crime. A heroin user could be put in prison or sent to a rehab program. One is a punishment, the other is not.

The action taken being against what the recipient wants to do with their time is not what defines a punishment. Punishments are correctional actions that rely on the power of violence deprive the recipient of something: money, freedom, comfort, life. Rehabilitation is a correctional action that relies on reason and education for the recipient.

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

#59

Post by geoduck14 »

ChrisKnott wrote: post #8
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…

Why is it a burden for the family? The family surely wanted the case solved...?

In so many instances where you will never know the name of the person who wrongs you. If you are waiting to "know who did you wrong" before you "move on", you will wallow in misery.

Please, for the sake of your own mental health, try to separate "closure" from "legal justice".

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

#60

Post by geoduck14 »

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 family agreed to help the police figure it out.

No. A couple of children, grand children, or cousins agreed to share their DNA (or it was legally removed without consent). The rest could have told the cops "NO", and they still would have gotten enough DNA evidence.

Post reply on HN