4 ms·

Same way they 'prove' that the report about DNA is an accurate description of what the actual analysis showed, or that there even was an analysis at all: by tru

by roel_v 11y ago

Same way they 'prove' that the report about DNA is an accurate description of what the actual analysis showed, or that there even was an analysis at all: by trusting the technicians who did it, and the protocols surrounding that. There is no 'single legal way' to do DNA analysis: it's all about the judges and jury trusting the experts to be impartial. Manufacturers of DNA analysis devices don't have to show their firmware source code for the analysis to be admissible as evidence.

cmurf 11y ago
No there isn't a blind trust in an expert nor a requirement for source code. There is something in between this. Look at the PCR method of analyzing DNA and how the comparison is made. Look at the case law on this. One example, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=11856984917651138776 https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=118569849176511... Now square that with "saying things does not make them true" and "you're entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts". I don't see how the prosecution has met the burden of proof, beyond a reasonable doubt, unless they show their work. Otherwise this is way too easy to frame people.
- TheSpiceIsLife 11y ago
  (Wrong button, intended to up vote you, my apologies.) Maybe DNA from blood is a different matter, but when it comes to hair samples I don't think we can trust the FBI. "The Justice Department and FBI have formally acknowledged that nearly every examiner in an elite FBI forensic unit gave flawed testimony in almost all trials in which they offered evidence against criminal defendants over more than a two-decade period before 2000."[1] 1. https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/crime/fbi-overstated-forensic-hair-matches-in-nearly-all-criminal-trials-for-decades/2015/04/18/39c8d8c6-e515-11e4-b510-962fcfabc310_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/crime/fbi-overstated-fo...

by roel_v 11y ago

cmurf 11y ago

No there isn't a blind trust in an expert nor a requirement for source code. There is something in between this. Look at the PCR method of analyzing DNA and how the comparison is made. Look at the case law on this. One example, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=11856984917651138776 https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=118569849176511... Now square that with "saying things does not make them true" and "you're entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts". I don't see how the prosecution has met the burden of proof, beyond a reasonable doubt, unless they show their work. Otherwise this is way too easy to frame people.

TheSpiceIsLife 11y ago
(Wrong button, intended to up vote you, my apologies.) Maybe DNA from blood is a different matter, but when it comes to hair samples I don't think we can trust the FBI. "The Justice Department and FBI have formally acknowledged that nearly every examiner in an elite FBI forensic unit gave flawed testimony in almost all trials in which they offered evidence against criminal defendants over more than a two-decade period before 2000."[1] 1. https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/crime/fbi-overstated-forensic-hair-matches-in-nearly-all-criminal-trials-for-decades/2015/04/18/39c8d8c6-e515-11e4-b510-962fcfabc310_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/crime/fbi-overstated-fo...