Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 18 submissions in the queue.
posted by martyb on Monday June 04 2018, @12:12PM   Printer-friendly
from the should-not-leave-your-DNA-lying-around-where-others-can-find-it dept.

https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2018/06/02/us/golden-state-killer-unsealed-warrants/index.html

When the suspected Golden State Killer drove into a Hobby Lobby parking lot in April, investigators were waiting nearby. As he walked into the craft store, it gave them a perfect chance to collect a secret DNA sample.

Police swabbed the driver's side handle of [the suspect's] car, according to arrest and search warrants released Friday.

Authorities sent it for testing and matched it to semen recovered at some of the Golden State Killer's crime scenes, the arrest warrant said.

[...] The stop at the Hobby Lobby was just one of several ways investigators used to zero in on a suspect. Earlier this year, police tracked him down by comparing genetic profiles from genealogy websites to crime scene DNA, according to investigators.

On April 23, a day before his arrest, police say they collected multiple samples from a trash can outside DeAngelo's home in Citrus Heights, a town 16 miles northeast of Sacramento. They had watched the home for three days, the warrant said.

Previously: DNA From Genealogy Site Led to Capture of Golden State Killer Suspect
GEDmatch: "What If It Was Called Police Genealogy?"


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This discussion has been archived.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: 2) by AthanasiusKircher on Monday June 04 2018, @04:14PM (5 children)

    by AthanasiusKircher (5291) on Monday June 04 2018, @04:14PM (#688421) Journal

    Also...

    it's never just one piece that solves a case, in particular DNA evidence, nor should it be, as the risk of errors is too high.

    Agreed. At least, that's the way it should be.

    Like science, it's large amounts of evidence that corroborate each other that removes all reasonable doubt.

    The problem is -- juries don't tend to be very "reasonable," particularly when it comes to evaluating scientific evidence, and particularly when it involves statistics. And there have been a number of cases where convictions solely on the basis of DNA have had serious statistical errors in the way evidence was presented, leading to bad convinctions. Unfortunately, the public only tends to hear about the crazy cases where the police make severe blunders with DNA (e.g., it turns out that the supposed suspect has an ironclad alibi and was thousands of miles away).

    Juries think of TV shows like CSI and assume when DNA comes into the picture, it must be rock-solid. It likely leads to quite a few innocent convictions each year, not to mention cases where DNA evidence is initially used for things like coercive interrogation that can generate a false confession -- which then can lead to a conviction even if the DNA evidence turns out to be inconclusive.

    (I'm not saying any of this applies to the present case with the Golden State Killer -- only that in many cases lots of people often assume police do very diligent investigations, but the actual positive evidence for conviction can be surprisingly slim. Often it's just a "good story" that prosecutors make up to try to connect the dots...)

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 2) by frojack on Monday June 04 2018, @06:42PM (4 children)

    by frojack (1554) on Monday June 04 2018, @06:42PM (#688495) Journal

    And there have been a number of cases where convictions solely on the basis of DNA have had serious statistical errors in the way evidence was presented, leading to bad convinctions.

    Name one.

    Virtually all DNA based cases that have yielded wrongful convictions have been due to contamination of original crime seen collections, (accidental or intentional).

    Statistical errors are virtually unheard of, because the Defense gets to have their own experts test the DNA as well.

    DNA evidence exonerates far more people than it convicts.

    --
    No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
    • (Score: 3, Interesting) by AthanasiusKircher on Tuesday June 05 2018, @02:28AM

      by AthanasiusKircher (5291) on Tuesday June 05 2018, @02:28AM (#688692) Journal

      First, I should be clear that what I meant was serious statistical misrepresentations in the way evidence was presented. Sometimes it's due to actual errors, but more often it's just playing off a jury's ignorance and when they hear "DNA match," they just assume it's ironclad.

      Name one.

      There have been loads of coverage of the potential problems with this sort of thing in recent years. See articles about it here [sciencemag.org], here [theatlantic.com], here [innocenceproject.org], here [pbs.org], here [latimes.com]. And the FBI even admitted [usatoday.com] to a pattern of statistical errors in DNA calculations over 15 years. Granted, the magnitude of the FBI errors mentioned in the last link may have been small enough not to cause wrongful convictions, but if such errors could go overlooked for a long time, it's certainly likely that other estimates are sometimes off.

      Virtually all DNA based cases that have yielded wrongful convictions have been due to contamination of original crime seen collections, (accidental or intentional).

      That's likely true, but we probably are significantly less likely to find out about wrongful convictions due to statistical error or misrepresentation, since usually it's significantly harder to challenge a ruling where a match was found. Evidence of contamination is a clear reason to challenge a ruling, but proving that a statistical misrepresentation (or even a blunder) had an effect on a jury is a lot harder.

      DNA evidence exonerates far more people than it convicts.

      If you're referred to ERRONEOUS cases, yes DNA is probably much more likely to be used to exonerate a bad conviction than to be used to erroneously convict. But again, part of the issue is that DNA evidence is seen by many juries (and judges) without nuance -- a "match" is a match, and so we just may not have gotten to a big wave of challenges yet because not enough judges are convinced to examine an appeal on this basis yet.

      I'm not saying it's hugely widespread in leading to false convictions. But exaggeration of DNA matches has happened and is definitely a problem.

    • (Score: 3, Interesting) by AthanasiusKircher on Tuesday June 05 2018, @02:39AM (2 children)

      by AthanasiusKircher (5291) on Tuesday June 05 2018, @02:39AM (#688695) Journal

      I should also say there are a number of wrongful trials, investigations, and convictions buried in the links I gave (and things they link to), but if you want one piece focused on a specific wrongful conviction due to bad DNA stats, see here [gizmodo.com].

      The link contains the following disturbing information concerning samples from crime scenes where there is a mixture of DNA:

      In a 2013 survey the National Institute of Standards and Technology ... asked 108 labs to interpret a made-up DNA sample with four people in it. They also provided the DNA profile of a fake suspect who wasn’t included in the sample. Seventy percent of the labs found the fake suspect to be a match.

      That study was also mentioned in some of the links in my previous post. Lots of labs don't have adequate standards to deal with this sort of stuff or estimate potential error. Chances are there are quite a few bad convictions out there.

      • (Score: 2) by frojack on Tuesday June 05 2018, @07:45AM (1 child)

        by frojack (1554) on Tuesday June 05 2018, @07:45AM (#688753) Journal

        Again, made up tests. Fake situations.

        Defense lawyers make mince meat out of those cases.
        Defense lawyers hire their own labs. And labs are getting more plentiful to find.

        --
        No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
        • (Score: 3, Touché) by AthanasiusKircher on Wednesday June 06 2018, @04:20AM

          by AthanasiusKircher (5291) on Wednesday June 06 2018, @04:20AM (#689157) Journal

          Did you even bother to look at ANY of the links? If you just look at the link in the post you replied to, there was a detailed discussion of a an actual case of an actual person who was convicted in basically just like this. You asked for me to name ONE case. There's one. Read. Learn. Stop being an ignorant ass. Then explore the manifold links in my previous post and see a multitude of other actual cases.