4 ms·
Interesting point - I highly doubt the suspect was a "prior suspect". But in this case I believe investigators were able to find additional evidence after they
by tysonzni 8y ago
Interesting point - I highly doubt the suspect was a "prior suspect". But in this case I believe investigators were able to find additional evidence after they matched the DNA. So in Bayesian terms, multiple updates (DNA match + location match + suspect appearance match + other physical evidence) were made to their prior.
Additionally, I think investigators tend to act more carefully in a high profile case than in a typical case, so I expect that they possess some additional conclusive evidence.
- tantalor 8y agoIt doesn't matter if multiple updated positively confirm the suspect as the perpetrator when the first link in the chain (ill-gotten DNA match) is excluded by the court. This guy will walk.
- fixermark 8y agoWill he? I believe this novel use of a private DNA database is so novel that there may not be any governing case law on whether it's a violation of privacy. The scanned individuals opted in for relative matching. The fact those people were relatives of John Doe is publicly-documented knowledge in birth records and not susceptible to a privacy challenge.
- tantalor 8y agoWe know states are prohibited from storing biometrics (DNA, fingerprints) of law abiding people for law enforcement purposes. Then it follows they are prohibited to outsource the same to third parties.
- fixermark 8y agoThat's a reasonable train of thought. IANAL, so I don't know if it actually holds water in court.
- pfdietz 8y agoThat's not how it works.