Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 11 submissions in the queue.
posted by CoolHand on Thursday June 02 2016, @05:25PM   Printer-friendly
from the not-what-you-think-it-is dept.

The Atlantic has a lengthy, but informative, article on the problems with DNA testing, often seen as infallible by juries:

"Ironically, you have a technology that was meant to help eliminate subjectivity in forensics," Erin Murphy, a law professor at NYU, told me recently. "But when you start to drill down deeper into the way crime laboratories operate today, you see that the subjectivity is still there: Standards vary, training levels vary, quality varies."

Last year, Murphy published a book called Inside the Cell: The Dark Side of Forensic DNA, which recounts dozens of cases of DNA typing gone terribly wrong. Some veer close to farce, such as the 15-year hunt for the Phantom of Heilbronn, whose DNA had been found at more than 40 crime scenes in Europe in the 1990s and early 2000s. The DNA in question turned out to belong not to a serial killer, but to an Austrian factory worker who made testing swabs used by police throughout the region.

The article also notes the increasing reliance on computer processing and the desire of the firms responsible to keep the details of the processing hidden, highlighting the example of DNA-testing firm Cybergenetics and their TrueAllele software:

William Thompson [attorney and a criminology professor at the University of California at Irvine] points out that Perlin [Cybergenetics CEO] has declined to make public the algorithm that drives the program. "You do have a black-box situation happening here," Thompson told me. "The data go in, and out comes the solution, and we're not fully informed of what happened in between."

Last year, at a murder trial in Pennsylvania where TrueAllele evidence had been introduced, defense attorneys demanded that Perlin turn over the source code for his software, noting that "without it, [the defendant] will be unable to determine if TrueAllele does what Dr. Perlin claims it does." The judge denied the request.
...
When I interviewed Perlin at Cybergenetics headquarters, I raised the matter of transparency. He was visibly annoyed. He noted that he'd published detailed papers on the theory behind TrueAllele, and filed patent applications, too: "We have disclosed not the trade secrets of the source code or the engineering details, but the basic math."

Originally seen at Bruce Schneier's Blog.


Original Submission

Related Stories

DNA Methylation Can Reveal Information About Criminal Suspects 6 comments

Crime scene DNA could be used to reveal a suspect's age—and whether they have cancer

A drop of blood left by a suspect at a crime scene is a treasure trove for forensic scientists. Genetic information extracted from such biological samples can be compared against DNA databases to see whether a sample's DNA sequence is a match for any known offenders, for example. To protect individuals' privacy, these analyses, known as DNA fingerprinting, are normally restricted to parts of the genome not involved in creating proteins. But in some countries, investigators hoping to narrow down their pool of suspects are allowed to identify certain protein-coding sequences that can help predict skin or eye color. And soon, scientists may be able to find out even more from an offender's DNA—including their age.

A new forensic approach analyzes the chemical tags attached to DNA, rather than genetic sequences themselves. These molecules, which can switch genes on and off, get added onto DNA throughout our life span in a process called DNA methylation. And because the patterns of DNA methylation change as we age, they could provide a good indication of how old a suspect is.

But this technique could inadvertently reveal a lot more about a suspect's health and lifestyle [DOI: 10.1016/j.tig.2018.03.006] [DX], raising tricky legal and ethical questions that may demand new privacy safeguards, scientists suggest in a commentary in the July issue of Trends in Genetics.

A brief interview with two of the authors is included in TFA.

Related: Better DNA Hair Analysis for Catching Criminals
Creating Wanted Posters from DNA Samples
The Problems With DNA Evidence
Study Predicts Appearance From Genome Sequence Data
GEDmatch: "What If It Was Called Police Genealogy?"
DNA Collected from Golden State Killer Suspect's Car, Leading to Arrest


Original Submission

Jiu Jitsu Club Helps Advance Forensic Research into Fiber Transfer During Assaults 12 comments

Phys.org has a short summary of research into patterns of fiber transfer across clothing during different types of assaults. The club members wore specially dyed uniforms and then enacted various styles of assault and defense to allow researchers to observe how clothing fibers transferred as a result.

Researchers from Northumbria University and King's College London have published findings outlining the extent that textile fibers transfer during controlled assault scenarios.

Their work, recently published in the academic journal Science & Justice, is the first time the number of fibers transferred between garments during physical assaults has been assessed by simulating the act with real people through Northumbria University's Jiu Jitsu club.

[...] "The importance of this research is that many experimental studies in forensic science are often a far cry from real-life situations, and we wanted to address that in this study," [lead study author Dr. Kelly] Sheridan said. "We wanted to investigate the extent of fiber transfer during different types of physical assaults using real people for the first time and Dr. David Chalton, who leads the Jiu Jitsu club, made it possible."

Apparently thousands of fibers were cross-transferred between the participants' garments each time, varying per attack/defense scenario.

Journal Reference:
Sheridan, Kelly J., Ray Palmer, et. al, A quantitative assessment of the extent and distribution of textile fibre transfer to persons involved in physical assault, Science & Justice (DOI: 10.1016/j.scijus.2023.05.001)


Original Submission

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 02 2016, @05:52PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 02 2016, @05:52PM (#354157)

    Clearly, protocols need to be better developed, and judges need to instruct juries (with examples) that DNA evidence does not guarantee the prosecutor's case.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 02 2016, @06:04PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 02 2016, @06:04PM (#354161)

      Unless you're O.J. and have expensive lawyers.

  • (Score: 2) by CoolHand on Thursday June 02 2016, @05:54PM

    by CoolHand (438) on Thursday June 02 2016, @05:54PM (#354158) Journal
    After diving into Making a Murderer [wikipedia.org], I've come to realize that DNA evidence is rarely as conclusive as the Judicial system would like us to believe. Many times results can be exaggerated, or skewed by the "crime labs" that are in the employ of the government.. Here is an article [newmediarockstars.com] on issues with the MaM case, where the crime lab technician (Sherry Culhane) and the FBI both had questionable testimony regarding evidence (and yes, it's inspired by a reddit sub, but it sure does seem suspicious):

    Both specialists expressed utter confidence in their results, but the problem was that the defense blew holes in the reliability of either test. Culhane contaminated the test of the ONLY DNA sample on the bloody bullet found in Steven Avery’s garage, which typically completely invalidates a test. And the defense produced an expert witness (Janine Arvizu, a lab quality auditor) who testified about just how unreliable negative EDTA blood tests are.

    It’s not evidence that either Mrs. Culhane or Dr. LeBeau is lying, but it sure does look like bias from someone who’s supposed to be completely impartial. And guess what? As reddit pointed out, there ARE other cases of lab techs intentionally falsifying results for personal or professional gain.

    --
    Anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job-Douglas Adams
  • (Score: 4, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 02 2016, @06:22PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 02 2016, @06:22PM (#354168)

    In 2009 some scientists figured out a way to fake DNA 'evidence' [nytimes.com] if the target's DNA profile was already in a database.

    And then there was the doctor who faked out two DNA tests [wikipedia.org] by putting an ampule of someone else's blood under his skin and convincing the plebotimist to draw from it instead of his actual vein.

    And last, but not least, DNA suffers from the "birthday paradox" where if you take an unknown sample of DNA and try to match it against a database, the larger the database the more likely you are to get false positives. The classic example being a white guy who's DNA matched a black guy's DNA. [latimes.com]

    • (Score: 2) by JNCF on Thursday June 02 2016, @07:35PM

      by JNCF (4317) on Thursday June 02 2016, @07:35PM (#354186) Journal

      In 2009 some scientists figured out a way to fake DNA 'evidence' if the target's DNA profile was already in a database.

      Oh shit, this is horrifying. This is one of those technologies I figured the CIA probably had already. Now I know they have it, and even though we collectively know they have it DNA evidence will still be used in court against politically unacceptable individuals. Fuck. People trust their governments way too much.

      • (Score: 2) by frojack on Thursday June 02 2016, @09:06PM

        by frojack (1554) on Thursday June 02 2016, @09:06PM (#354220) Journal

        we collectively know they have it DNA evidence will still be used in court against politically unacceptable individuals.

        Well if by politically unacceptable individuals you mean murderers and rapists, yeah.

        --
        No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
        • (Score: 2) by JNCF on Thursday June 02 2016, @09:43PM

          by JNCF (4317) on Thursday June 02 2016, @09:43PM (#354233) Journal

          I mean that any time a notable political dissident is accused of a crime they deny partaking in based on DNA evidence, the judge/jury should be extremely skeptical. If Cody Wilson denies being the shooter, and his DNA is on the gun, I'll give him the benefit of the doubt.

          • (Score: 2) by JNCF on Thursday June 02 2016, @10:25PM

            by JNCF (4317) on Thursday June 02 2016, @10:25PM (#354252) Journal

            Also, he did get away with it for years. After two unsuccessful DNA tests, I would probably be as skeptical of the victim's testimony as the court was. Good thing she got a detective to break into the guy's car and get another DNA sample, but too bad he still had to be caught raping again (this time a 15 year old) before they found him guilty of anything. I guess he got out with parole in four years.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 03 2016, @02:52PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 03 2016, @02:52PM (#354572)

          Murderers and rapists are hardly the only ones who have their DNA collected. Some states collect DNA over very minor things. Furthermore, even murderers and rapists deserve a fair trial.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 03 2016, @02:59PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 03 2016, @02:59PM (#354576)

          Go lick some more boots.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 02 2016, @07:59PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 02 2016, @07:59PM (#354192)

      We should probably explain why the last link is like the birthday paradox.

      In that search there was no attempt to match profile A to any given profile in the database (which would be complexity order of n), but rather an attempt to match any profile in the database to any other profile ((n * n -1) / 2 and thus order of n^2). So the even the most unlikely scenario, becomes n times more likely. If n is rather large, it becomes almost a given. But in the event of comparing a given sample to a database, the likelihood is still the same, which is very unlikely (depending on actual odds).

    • (Score: 4, Informative) by wonkey_monkey on Thursday June 02 2016, @08:13PM

      by wonkey_monkey (279) on Thursday June 02 2016, @08:13PM (#354200) Homepage

      And then there was the doctor who faked out two DNA tests by putting an ampule of someone else's blood under his skin and convincing the plebotimist to draw from it instead of his actual vein.

      And not, as one may assume from reading the above, as an experiment to test DNA testing. He was a rapist trying to avoid suspicion.

      --
      systemd is Roko's Basilisk
      • (Score: 2) by frojack on Thursday June 02 2016, @09:02PM

        by frojack (1554) on Thursday June 02 2016, @09:02PM (#354219) Journal

        Yeah, I saw that episode of Forensic Files too.
        But he didn't get away with it, and its not a ruse available to the common rapist, and blood draw techniques used today prevent such a gambit.
        This is way cops take you to the hospital to draw blood these days. Its so the police never get to hold your sample of pure blood.

        --
        No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
        • (Score: 2) by JNCF on Thursday June 02 2016, @10:00PM

          by JNCF (4317) on Thursday June 02 2016, @10:00PM (#354243) Journal

          Having missed that episode of Forensic Files, I made the incorrect assumption wonkey_monkey was warning against. How do modern techniques prevent such a gambit? Multiple draw points?

          • (Score: 2) by frojack on Friday June 03 2016, @07:14PM

            by frojack (1554) on Friday June 03 2016, @07:14PM (#354745) Journal

            Once a gambit is known, its easily checked for. The case is famous enough to have made it into training manuals everywhere.

            Both by the technician drawing blood, and the lab testing for preservatives pre-existing in the sample drawn.
            Pushing up the guys sleeve half an inch would have revealed the surgical insertion point.

            --
            No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
        • (Score: 2) by dry on Friday June 03 2016, @06:26AM

          by dry (223) on Friday June 03 2016, @06:26AM (#354384) Journal

          You mean at one time police would take your blood? That's pretty fucked. Next you'll be telling me that they don't remove two samples and make one available to the defence. Considering that taking blood is the one of the most invasive searches possible, I'd hope your courts would throw out any evidence collected that way. Or perhaps they do a strict reading of the 4th, which doesn't actually mention body fluids.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 03 2016, @02:54PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 03 2016, @02:54PM (#354574)

            The fourth mentions searches of your person.

    • (Score: 2) by frojack on Thursday June 02 2016, @09:14PM

      by frojack (1554) on Thursday June 02 2016, @09:14PM (#354224) Journal

      In 2009 some scientists figured out a way to fake DNA 'evidence' [nytimes.com] if the target's DNA profile was already in a database.

      You need to follow up on that story before citing it.
      Because alleles are simple encoded into numbers, knowing someone's numbers allows you to mix together blood from several sources that encodes to the same set of numbers.
      That might be enough to get the computer to spit out a name.

      But it IS NOT sufficient as a DNA proof, and its not sufficient for an arrest. The spit out person's blood would have to match many more alleles, with no non-matching numbers in order for the DNA evidence to be acceptable. One or two wrong sets of alleles in the sample from mixed blood would trigger alarms. Indexing in the computer is not evidence. Not for DNA, and not for Fingerprints. After you get your list of possibles, further testing needs to be done. Which is why the defense also has their own DNA and Finger Print experts.

      --
      No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
  • (Score: 2) by Gravis on Thursday June 02 2016, @10:02PM

    by Gravis (4596) on Thursday June 02 2016, @10:02PM (#354245)

    “They expect us to have the most advanced technology possible, and they expect it to look like it does on television.”

    thanks in part to the DHS' Rapid DNA project [dhs.gov], we actually have the technology to make this sort of testing faster and more reliable than ever. the fact that we don't have this by now indicates a resistance to change from within the system.

  • (Score: 2) by quintessence on Friday June 03 2016, @03:09AM

    by quintessence (6227) on Friday June 03 2016, @03:09AM (#354333)

    The whole field of forensics has come under scrutiny, with, in an article I read, a few federal judges making the point that any evidence will be questioned heavily, and fair game to be challenged instead of simply deferring to "scientific" opinion.

    Now that the gold standard of DNA evidence is in doubt (as it should, as it can only reliably prove innocence, not guilt), the whole house of cards may fall.

    http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/forensic-tools-whats-reliable-and-whats-not-so-scientific/ [pbs.org]

    Give it another 50 years and judges might see the light concerning computer forensics.