Recent and related:
Hair sample that put a man in prison turned out to be dog hair - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39110088 - Jan 2024 (41 comments)
Forensics Gone Wrong: When DNA Snares the Innocent (2016)
81–90 of 119 posts
Re: Forensics Gone Wrong: When DNA Snares the Innocent (2016)
#82Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Trust the science" always must be taken with a grain of salt.
I'd say it should be more like, "Trust the science, while also being aware of what model and assumptions drive the conclusion, and which inference the science is supporting vs agnostic on." Doesn't fit as well on a t-shirt though.
I think part of the problem is that people in general have a very poor understanding of what science is, or how to evaluate evidence, so they regard it as received wisdom, handed down by a special caste, and not to be questioned.
So they trust experts without even knowing what questions to ask, or how to assess evidence, or evaluate certainty, or when they should get more opinions.
Not unlike the Post Office convictions. Then there were the Roy Meadows convictions. Many others, and I am sure many other people who have not been able to prove their innocence.
Re: Forensics Gone Wrong: When DNA Snares the Innocent (2016)
#83Earlier quoted context omitted.
Confessions need to be made inadmissible in court as evidence. All state legislatures have the power to make that so, as does Congress at the federal level. The judicial system could do it too, in theory, but never will. Confessions could still be used by police as leads. While all "eyewitness testimony" is defective evidence, confessions are the most defective of all. Humans have weird psychology, but the psychology…
> Humans have weird psychology, but the psychology around confessions is the weirdest of all. It's why it's been exploited by the Catholic religion (and others). It causes strange (and not always unpleasant) emotions in those confessing, those hearing the confession, and even those confessing falsely. The purpose of confession in the religious sense has nothing to do with the purpose of confession in the judicial sen…
Historically, forced religious confession has been used to get the subject to confess to heracy, and then the subject is executed as punishment. All in hopes that the subject will become a better person, I assume.
Re: Forensics Gone Wrong: When DNA Snares the Innocent (2016)
#84Very recently we had a cold-case here in Norway, old murder from the 90s (The murder of Birgitte Tengs), where the most recent suspect was first found guilty, but then acquitted on an appeal.
Back in the 90s police had found DNA on her leggings/pantyhose, which years later matched with him.
But they could not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the DNA had gotten there through direct physical contact - as his DNA could have gotten there by them simply sharing some surface, like sitting on the same chair at a gas station.
Re: Forensics Gone Wrong: When DNA Snares the Innocent (2016)
#85See 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…
Plot Twist: this woman WAS a prolific serial killer and, after realizing that she had left DNA behind at early crime scenes, got a job at the cotton swab factory to cover her tracks.
Re: Forensics Gone Wrong: When DNA Snares the Innocent (2016)
#86DNA evidence is scary because we have decades of experiences and milestones saying that it isn't as simple and clear cut as we think it is, and still we treat it is hard, inarguable truth. Even though history teaches us we should know better. It is one of those things that reminds me that most people with a science degree do not actually practice science.
The alternative being?...
Re: Forensics Gone Wrong: When DNA Snares the Innocent (2016)
#87Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Humans have weird psychology, but the psychology around confessions is the weirdest of all. It's why it's been exploited by the Catholic religion (and others). It causes strange (and not always unpleasant) emotions in those confessing, those hearing the confession, and even those confessing falsely. The purpose of confession in the religious sense has nothing to do with the purpose of confession in the judicial sen…
Historically, forced religious confession has been used to get the subject to confess to heracy, and then the subject is executed as punishment. All in hopes that the subject will become a better person, I assume.
This is 2024, not 1492.
Re: Forensics Gone Wrong: When DNA Snares the Innocent (2016)
#88Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Humans have weird psychology, but the psychology around confessions is the weirdest of all. It's why it's been exploited by the Catholic religion (and others). It causes strange (and not always unpleasant) emotions in those confessing, those hearing the confession, and even those confessing falsely. The purpose of confession in the religious sense has nothing to do with the purpose of confession in the judicial sen…
The inquisition was effectively a judicial body. They were religious representatives and burned witches for questionable reasons, but their… questioning did force quite a few false confessions if I recall correctly. This has little to do with your Sunday Priest.
See above. What people did 400 years ago is not relevant to my point about how things are today.
Re: Forensics Gone Wrong: When DNA Snares the Innocent (2016)
#89DNA evidence is scary because we have decades of experiences and milestones saying that it isn't as simple and clear cut as we think it is, and still we treat it is hard, inarguable truth. Even though history teaches us we should know better. It is one of those things that reminds me that most people with a science degree do not actually practice science.
The alternative being?...
The alternative is to have only as much confidence in anything as it deserves.
Re: Forensics Gone Wrong: When DNA Snares the Innocent (2016)
#90The more I read about forensic "science", the more horrified I become. DNA is still a shining beacon of scientificity in that field. The other techniques that guided most crime scene investigation before DNA were a complete crapshoot. Blood-splatter analysis, fire investigation, psychological analysis of testimony, all these are basically only slightly above the "source: trust me bro" level.
It's horrifying.