10 ms·

Forensics Gone Wrong: When DNA Snares the Innocent (2016)

Zigurd 3y ago
Evidence handling and testing should not be under the control of police, or even prosecution. Incentives need to be aligned toward justice, not convictions.
- picadores 3y ago
  Full Process Surveilance is needed to make evidence admissable. If it aint filmed the whole way, it aint valid.
  - dylan604 3y ago
    I think the searches need to be done with full body camera back up to be sure. This would be an attempt at my partner planting evidence when arriving at the location for me to find. It also should find the situations where the person that planted the evidence from suggesting for someone else to look where he planted it. Of course, this does nothing for planting evidence before the search, but would hopefully stem the opportunity a bit.
    - picadores 3y ago
      No complete record - no case..
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- arcbyte 3y ago
  I think there's more work we can do to balance the power of individual defendants against the state, but the adversarial justice system is the most accurate and effective system for mediating public safety, punishment, and revenge ever developed in the history of the world.
  - Lord-Jobo 3y ago
    The main concern here is that the system is being nearly entirely bypassed. Literally 98% of cases plea out^1, bypassing the entire system of court procedure that is supposed to resolve these issues. 1:https://www.npr.org/2023/02/22/1158356619/plea-bargains-criminal-cases-justice https://www.npr.org/2023/02/22/1158356619/plea-bargains-crim...
    - hiatus 3y ago
      Submitting a plea is part of court procedure, and I'd also point out that the data you shared is for US federal cases, which have a notoriously high rate of conviction which could explain why people are quick to plea out. > In fiscal year 2022, only 290 of 71,954 defendants in federal criminal cases – about 0.4% – went to trial and were acquitted, according to a Pew Research Center analysis of the latest available statistics from the federal judiciary. Another 1,379 went to trial and were found guilty (1.9%). So 1669 defendants went to trial, and 1379 were found guilty, roughly 80%. https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/06/14/fewer-than-1-of-defendants-in-federal-criminal-cases-were-acquitted-in-2022/ https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/06/14/fewer-tha...
      - giantg2 3y ago
        The data isn't much different in my state where 95%+ of criminal convictions end in a deal.
      - deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
      - phpisthebest 3y ago
        so there are 2 conclusions to draw from this 1. the federal law enforcement, and prosecutors are prefect humans that only ever go after the guilty 2. The system is sooo skewed in favor of the government that fighting them is pointless, likely due to immense corruption in the system it self Since no humans are perfect, I think the stronger case is for #2 to be reality
- dylan604 3y ago
  Well, if you don't think it should be under control of police or prosecution, who do you suggest needs to do it? The defense? A third party private contractor like Theranos? Who's going to be the ones validating whoever is decided can do the testing?
  - Zigurd 3y ago
    It's a kind of factoring-out from police, who are often systemically racist and corrupt. factoring-out responses to mental health crises, reducing the amount of armed response, etc. reduces the danger from police violence. Factoring out evidence handling to a separate agency that is just as motivated to prove innocence as guilt would improve the use of forensics, and reduce bad plea deals and prosecutions.
    - dylan604 3y ago
      what other agency staffed by whom?
  - jihiggins 3y ago
    everything you listed is still better than giving it to the cops. "these random examples sound bad" isn't really a good argument for doing nothing.
    - dylan604 3y ago
      random examples are necessary because we were walked to the edge of the cliff with no actual solution provided, so hyperbole felt like an appropriate response to encourage moving the train further down the tracks. it's not a bad idea, but it's obviously ripe for just an additional layer of bureaucratic waste. clearly, there is a lack of trust that the police could handle evidence properly. so the natural follow up is who is trust worthy? how would it work? cops are called to the scene, but are then only there to "secure it" until some 3rd party comes along to collect evidence? what's the purpose of a detective at that point? we're not just shifting that role from a police agency to some 3rd party. are we going to re-establish the Pinkertons? if the detectives are no longer a role in the police, then more than likely those that would be attracted to that role would just join the 3rd party instead. so you haven't solved anything other than these people are no longer part of the police but are still involved.
opwieurposiu 3y ago
[flagged]
- konschubert 3y ago
  This kind of tough talk sounds may sound good to you, but the end result will be that only thugs will dare to be DA. There needs to be accountability, but this isn’t the way to do it
- theGnuMe 3y ago
  Yes but technically the jury are the ones who convicted.
  - sixothree 3y ago
    I would argue the jury was lied to here. Having been a juror on a murder trial, I witnessed first hand how much people are willing to believe prosecutors. In my case there were very obvious timeline issues and jurors just looked past it without a second thought.
    - giantg2 3y ago
      It seems that many of the smart people have excuses to get out of jury duty, potentially skewing the pool to the low side. Although it's also possible that many of the smarter people who are selected have biases they aren't aware of or don't want to know about.
      - behringer 3y ago
        It's not just their excuses. They are purposefully removed by the prosecutors if they smell an inkling on independent thought.
    - kiba 3y ago
      People takes shortcut if they can. That is why "social proof" exists. This is workable for everyday situation, not so much in situations like a trial.
SpicyLemonZest 3y ago
A lot of what the article is saying makes sense, but I really wish the reporter had pushed a bit harder on Hampikian. He conducted a study to show that mixed DNA analysis can falsely exclude people, but are there similar studies that confirm the complex strategies he's exploring in the Tapp case can't falsely exclude people? "Civil rights advocates object to [familial DNA] because it means that simply being related to an offender can make you a person of interest." If Hampikian knows that DNA can snare the innocent, shouldn't he be opposing any use of familial DNA rather than helping people use it in their appeals?
- giantg2 3y ago
  It doesn't have to be 1-to-1. You can have different standards for offensive vs defensive use of the information. Showing the DNA matches some relative of a different family could be enough to generate reasonable doubt while still being too weak to generate probable cause to arrest or even search others. Frankly, they had no probable cause to compell a DNA sample from that guys son. Probable cause is supposed to be that by a preponderance of the evidence that the person has committed the crime. That's clearly not the case as it could be anyone in that family, and with multiple suspects it's not 'more likely than not' that the individual is guilty. Instead the courts allow fishing trips.
  - gwright 3y ago
    > Probable cause is supposed to be that by a preponderance of the evidence .. Really? IANAL, but this sounds like a muddling of what is required for arrest and what is the evidentiary standard for resolving a civil case in the US. I think realistically the trigger for a search or an arrest is going to be much less than what is necessary to successfully convict in a criminal case or to prevail in a civil case.
    - giantg2 3y ago
      "but this sounds like a muddling of what is required for arrest and what is the evidentiary standard for resolving a civil case in the US." I remember seeing that the standard for what was reasonable search and seizure in my state was set at preponderance of the evidence. It seems to be in line with other states/fed where you need evidence supporting that the crime has been committed or the object exists in a specific place. This can be, and often is, just an affidavit from the officer(s). Being a one sided process, being more likely than not is satisfied if there isnt an issue with the affidavit like missing element of the crime or unrealiable testimony. The problem comes up when the judges aren't viewing these with an open mind or to the standarss that states set (often these are handled by magistrates that do not hold a law degree nor have passed the bar). Often times the elements of the crimes defined in statue haven't even been claimed to have been met in the affidavit. As an example, there might be someone operating a still at their residence. Just the sight of a still does not provide probable cause (only reasonable suspicion, and even that could be arguable). For probable cause to be met, you would have to prove that it was used for alcohol and that the person didn't have a fuel distillation permit or was selling it, etc (and probably one or two other small things in the statute). This is specific to my state. Other states may have more stringent rules about even owning a still. "I think realistically the trigger for a search or an arrest is going to be much less than what is necessary to successfully convict in a criminal case or to prevail in a civil case." It is less than the standard for conviction. All it needs is to show the elements of the crime have been claimed to have been met in the affidavit. Although they aren't even meeting this standard in every case. Or in some cases the officers have lied or made mistakes. It's not exactly the same as a civil case since the warrant process is ex parte and does not need to consider defenses to the charge. It's just the same level of proof but applied to one-sided testimony. For example, you might have shot someone in self defense and the witnesses all agree it was self defense. They can still charge you (in most states) and make you prove that defense in court. You could get into some malicious prosecution stuff here, but according to probable cause you have satisfied all the elements of the crime and can be charged. Proving your defense then happens at the trial. IANAL either, but have some criminal justice background. These are just what I have seen as it applies in my state.
throw0101d 3y ago
See 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 between the crimes was the presence of DNA from a single female, which had been recovered from 40 crime scenes, ranging from murders to burglaries. In late March 2009, investigators concluded that there was no "phantom criminal", and the DNA had already been present on the cotton swabs used for collecting DNA samples; it belonged to a woman who worked at the factory where they were made.[1] * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phantom_of_Heilbronn https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phantom_of_Heilbronn
- bradyd 3y ago
  There was also the case where a DNA test of a woman's children showed that they did not share any of her DNA. Social Services was threatening to take them away from her. When she had another child, the court ordered an officer to be present during the birth and collect DNA from both of them at that time. Even still the DNA "proved" she was not the mother. It was only after another similar case was discovered that they were able to determine that she was a chimera, basically that she was her own twin, and had two different DNA strands. https://abcnews.go.com/Primetime/shes-twin/story?id=2315693 https://abcnews.go.com/Primetime/shes-twin/story?id=2315693
  - jansan 3y ago
    "Trust the science" always must be taken with a grain of salt.
    - jMyles 3y ago
      "Trust the science", a refrain we of course heard over and over again used to justify questionable (and often coincidentally highly profitable) interventions during the COVID-19 pandemic, is already a contradiction in terms. The entire basis for being so enamored with science, as so many of us are, is that it provides a method for establishing facts without needing trust. Despite the noise to the contrary, we live in a highly literate age, and are a species filled with curiosity and compassion. There's no reason that scientific findings - especially those used to underwrite public policy - cannot be made easy to understand and straightforward to replicate.
cynicalsecurity 3y ago
[flagged]
jansan 3y ago
Do people know about the Phantom of Heilbronn? For 15 years, police in Germany found DNA of one and the same person on about 40 different crime scenes. The crimes seemed to be completely unrelated, including murder, burglary, theft and even disputes between neighbors. This person was labeled "The Phantom" and all that was known aws that she was a female (XX chromosme type female). Everyone agreed that she must have been a true monster. To keep it short, it was all a contamination of the swabs used by forensics. The DNA belonged to a worker in a factory where the swabs were produced. It took the police 15 years to find out. 15 years! I sometimes wonder what would have happened if that woman had by accident become a suspect in a crime and her DNA run through the police's DNA database. https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heilbronner_Phantom https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heilbronner_Phantom
- dekhn 3y ago
  Much of science involves the eliminate of false positives (this is a great example). Throughout my career as scientist (I'm an ex-scientist now) and machine learning, I came to the conclusion that false positive rates must be kept extremely low for people to trust the system, because of the consequence of false positives.
stefantalpalaru 3y ago
[dead]
karmakaze 3y ago
> [...] he confessed after a series of lengthy interrogations that several experts have described as coercive. Police found plenty of male DNA at the scene, and it did not match Tapp's. But the prosecutor and jury believed his confession. This story isn't even about DNA evidence.
- jMyles 3y ago
  It's true. People reliably confess to crimes they did not commit. It's just another dead canary in the cages of our justice system.
  - AniseAbyss 3y ago
    [dead]
- NoMoreNicksLeft 3y ago
  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 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. It causes them in those who confess because they were coerced, it causes them in those who choose to falsely confess without coercion. To those who are familiar with them, those pleasant feelings can become an irresistible temptation to falsely confess. On top of that, it's been what, nearly 70 years since shows like the Twilight Zone introduced the idea to everyone that in unusual circumstances we might have done things we don't even remember. So when someone starts to break after long and even tortuous interrogations, they might themselves start to worry that they are guilty and their memories are faulty.
  - psunavy03 3y ago
wizardforhire 3y ago
[flagged]
- TravisCooper 3y ago
  Agreed. This is absolutely immoral. I don't know how we can trust that this evidence is useful in an "real" sense.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
bborud 3y ago
DNA 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.
- Simplicitas 3y ago
  The alternative being?...
  - elevatedastalt 3y ago
    The alternative is to have only as much confidence in anything as it deserves.
  - tredre3 3y ago
    Just because we don't currently have an alternative doesn't mean we should keep using a flawed methodology.
- mrguyorama 3y ago
  No, the scientists behind DNA testing absolutely understand the limitations. The people who don't understand the limitations of science and possible errors in certain methods are clueless jurors and the cops who pay a random person $800 to sit on the stand, say they are "and expert" and claim there's a trillion to one odds that two people could have "the same" DNA, even though that isn't even remotely what was tested! Courts allow basically anything as long as you can pay a guy to say they are an expert and parrot whatever you want. But somehow that's treated as if it's the fault of biologists and others who do DNA analysis? Maybe our courts shouldn't be based on "Trust anything a cop says, period"
  - bborud 3y ago
    That has not always been the case. They were dead wrong about the population size needed to produce false positives for the number of sites usually compared in the 1990s. These were _scientists_. Thinking that scientists have always known the limitations kind of proves my point about even most highly educated people not understanding science.
rysertio 3y ago
This is why DNA tests should always be done to exclude suspects, not to include them.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
scorpio8902 3y ago
This is a really old story. Here are the updates: Tapp was exonerated in 2019: https://innocenceproject.org/cases/christopher-tapp/ https://innocenceproject.org/cases/christopher-tapp/ Tapp receives $11.7 settlement from the City of Idaho Falls, ID, USA in 2022: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/christopher-tapp-wrongful-conviction-angie-dodge-murder-11-7-million-settlement-idaho-falls/ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/christopher-tapp-wrongful-convi... Tapp dies in Las Vegas, USA in 2023: https://www.eastidahonews.com/2023/11/chris-tapp-idaho-falls-man-wrongfully-convicted-dies-at-47/ https://www.eastidahonews.com/2023/11/chris-tapp-idaho-falls...
- KMag 3y ago
  $11.7 million, not $11.7.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
dang 3y ago
Recent and related: Hair sample that put a man in prison turned out to be dog hair - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39110088 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39110088 - Jan 2024 (41 comments)
TrackerFF 3y ago
Very 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.
elevatedastalt 3y ago
The 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.
AniseAbyss 3y ago
[dead]

Evidence handling and testing should not be under the control of police, or even prosecution. Incentives need to be aligned toward justice, not convictions.

picadores 3y ago
Full Process Surveilance is needed to make evidence admissable. If it aint filmed the whole way, it aint valid.
- dylan604 3y ago
  I think the searches need to be done with full body camera back up to be sure. This would be an attempt at my partner planting evidence when arriving at the location for me to find. It also should find the situations where the person that planted the evidence from suggesting for someone else to look where he planted it. Of course, this does nothing for planting evidence before the search, but would hopefully stem the opportunity a bit.
  - picadores 3y ago
    No complete record - no case..
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
arcbyte 3y ago
I think there's more work we can do to balance the power of individual defendants against the state, but the adversarial justice system is the most accurate and effective system for mediating public safety, punishment, and revenge ever developed in the history of the world.
- Lord-Jobo 3y ago
  The main concern here is that the system is being nearly entirely bypassed. Literally 98% of cases plea out^1, bypassing the entire system of court procedure that is supposed to resolve these issues. 1:https://www.npr.org/2023/02/22/1158356619/plea-bargains-criminal-cases-justice https://www.npr.org/2023/02/22/1158356619/plea-bargains-crim...
  - hiatus 3y ago
    Submitting a plea is part of court procedure, and I'd also point out that the data you shared is for US federal cases, which have a notoriously high rate of conviction which could explain why people are quick to plea out. > In fiscal year 2022, only 290 of 71,954 defendants in federal criminal cases – about 0.4% – went to trial and were acquitted, according to a Pew Research Center analysis of the latest available statistics from the federal judiciary. Another 1,379 went to trial and were found guilty (1.9%). So 1669 defendants went to trial, and 1379 were found guilty, roughly 80%. https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/06/14/fewer-than-1-of-defendants-in-federal-criminal-cases-were-acquitted-in-2022/ https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/06/14/fewer-tha...
    - giantg2 3y ago
      The data isn't much different in my state where 95%+ of criminal convictions end in a deal.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    - phpisthebest 3y ago
      so there are 2 conclusions to draw from this 1. the federal law enforcement, and prosecutors are prefect humans that only ever go after the guilty 2. The system is sooo skewed in favor of the government that fighting them is pointless, likely due to immense corruption in the system it self Since no humans are perfect, I think the stronger case is for #2 to be reality
dylan604 3y ago
Well, if you don't think it should be under control of police or prosecution, who do you suggest needs to do it? The defense? A third party private contractor like Theranos? Who's going to be the ones validating whoever is decided can do the testing?
- Zigurd 3y ago
  It's a kind of factoring-out from police, who are often systemically racist and corrupt. factoring-out responses to mental health crises, reducing the amount of armed response, etc. reduces the danger from police violence. Factoring out evidence handling to a separate agency that is just as motivated to prove innocence as guilt would improve the use of forensics, and reduce bad plea deals and prosecutions.
  - dylan604 3y ago
    what other agency staffed by whom?
- jihiggins 3y ago
  everything you listed is still better than giving it to the cops. "these random examples sound bad" isn't really a good argument for doing nothing.
  - dylan604 3y ago
    random examples are necessary because we were walked to the edge of the cliff with no actual solution provided, so hyperbole felt like an appropriate response to encourage moving the train further down the tracks. it's not a bad idea, but it's obviously ripe for just an additional layer of bureaucratic waste. clearly, there is a lack of trust that the police could handle evidence properly. so the natural follow up is who is trust worthy? how would it work? cops are called to the scene, but are then only there to "secure it" until some 3rd party comes along to collect evidence? what's the purpose of a detective at that point? we're not just shifting that role from a police agency to some 3rd party. are we going to re-establish the Pinkertons? if the detectives are no longer a role in the police, then more than likely those that would be attracted to that role would just join the 3rd party instead. so you haven't solved anything other than these people are no longer part of the police but are still involved.

opwieurposiu 3y ago

[flagged]

konschubert 3y ago
This kind of tough talk sounds may sound good to you, but the end result will be that only thugs will dare to be DA. There needs to be accountability, but this isn’t the way to do it
theGnuMe 3y ago
Yes but technically the jury are the ones who convicted.
- sixothree 3y ago
  I would argue the jury was lied to here. Having been a juror on a murder trial, I witnessed first hand how much people are willing to believe prosecutors. In my case there were very obvious timeline issues and jurors just looked past it without a second thought.
  - giantg2 3y ago
    It seems that many of the smart people have excuses to get out of jury duty, potentially skewing the pool to the low side. Although it's also possible that many of the smarter people who are selected have biases they aren't aware of or don't want to know about.
    - behringer 3y ago
      It's not just their excuses. They are purposefully removed by the prosecutors if they smell an inkling on independent thought.
  - kiba 3y ago
    People takes shortcut if they can. That is why "social proof" exists. This is workable for everyday situation, not so much in situations like a trial.

SpicyLemonZest 3y ago

A lot of what the article is saying makes sense, but I really wish the reporter had pushed a bit harder on Hampikian. He conducted a study to show that mixed DNA analysis can falsely exclude people, but are there similar studies that confirm the complex strategies he's exploring in the Tapp case can't falsely exclude people? "Civil rights advocates object to [familial DNA] because it means that simply being related to an offender can make you a person of interest." If Hampikian knows that DNA can snare the innocent, shouldn't he be opposing any use of familial DNA rather than helping people use it in their appeals?

giantg2 3y ago
It doesn't have to be 1-to-1. You can have different standards for offensive vs defensive use of the information. Showing the DNA matches some relative of a different family could be enough to generate reasonable doubt while still being too weak to generate probable cause to arrest or even search others. Frankly, they had no probable cause to compell a DNA sample from that guys son. Probable cause is supposed to be that by a preponderance of the evidence that the person has committed the crime. That's clearly not the case as it could be anyone in that family, and with multiple suspects it's not 'more likely than not' that the individual is guilty. Instead the courts allow fishing trips.
- gwright 3y ago
  > Probable cause is supposed to be that by a preponderance of the evidence .. Really? IANAL, but this sounds like a muddling of what is required for arrest and what is the evidentiary standard for resolving a civil case in the US. I think realistically the trigger for a search or an arrest is going to be much less than what is necessary to successfully convict in a criminal case or to prevail in a civil case.
  - giantg2 3y ago
    "but this sounds like a muddling of what is required for arrest and what is the evidentiary standard for resolving a civil case in the US." I remember seeing that the standard for what was reasonable search and seizure in my state was set at preponderance of the evidence. It seems to be in line with other states/fed where you need evidence supporting that the crime has been committed or the object exists in a specific place. This can be, and often is, just an affidavit from the officer(s). Being a one sided process, being more likely than not is satisfied if there isnt an issue with the affidavit like missing element of the crime or unrealiable testimony. The problem comes up when the judges aren't viewing these with an open mind or to the standarss that states set (often these are handled by magistrates that do not hold a law degree nor have passed the bar). Often times the elements of the crimes defined in statue haven't even been claimed to have been met in the affidavit. As an example, there might be someone operating a still at their residence. Just the sight of a still does not provide probable cause (only reasonable suspicion, and even that could be arguable). For probable cause to be met, you would have to prove that it was used for alcohol and that the person didn't have a fuel distillation permit or was selling it, etc (and probably one or two other small things in the statute). This is specific to my state. Other states may have more stringent rules about even owning a still. "I think realistically the trigger for a search or an arrest is going to be much less than what is necessary to successfully convict in a criminal case or to prevail in a civil case." It is less than the standard for conviction. All it needs is to show the elements of the crime have been claimed to have been met in the affidavit. Although they aren't even meeting this standard in every case. Or in some cases the officers have lied or made mistakes. It's not exactly the same as a civil case since the warrant process is ex parte and does not need to consider defenses to the charge. It's just the same level of proof but applied to one-sided testimony. For example, you might have shot someone in self defense and the witnesses all agree it was self defense. They can still charge you (in most states) and make you prove that defense in court. You could get into some malicious prosecution stuff here, but according to probable cause you have satisfied all the elements of the crime and can be charged. Proving your defense then happens at the trial. IANAL either, but have some criminal justice background. These are just what I have seen as it applies in my state.

throw0101d 3y ago

See 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 between the crimes was the presence of DNA from a single female, which had been recovered from 40 crime scenes, ranging from murders to burglaries. In late March 2009, investigators concluded that there was no "phantom criminal", and the DNA had already been present on the cotton swabs used for collecting DNA samples; it belonged to a woman who worked at the factory where they were made.[1] * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phantom_of_Heilbronn https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phantom_of_Heilbronn

bradyd 3y ago
There was also the case where a DNA test of a woman's children showed that they did not share any of her DNA. Social Services was threatening to take them away from her. When she had another child, the court ordered an officer to be present during the birth and collect DNA from both of them at that time. Even still the DNA "proved" she was not the mother. It was only after another similar case was discovered that they were able to determine that she was a chimera, basically that she was her own twin, and had two different DNA strands. https://abcnews.go.com/Primetime/shes-twin/story?id=2315693 https://abcnews.go.com/Primetime/shes-twin/story?id=2315693
- jansan 3y ago
  "Trust the science" always must be taken with a grain of salt.
  - jMyles 3y ago
    "Trust the science", a refrain we of course heard over and over again used to justify questionable (and often coincidentally highly profitable) interventions during the COVID-19 pandemic, is already a contradiction in terms. The entire basis for being so enamored with science, as so many of us are, is that it provides a method for establishing facts without needing trust. Despite the noise to the contrary, we live in a highly literate age, and are a species filled with curiosity and compassion. There's no reason that scientific findings - especially those used to underwrite public policy - cannot be made easy to understand and straightforward to replicate.

cynicalsecurity 3y ago

[flagged]

jansan 3y ago

Do people know about the Phantom of Heilbronn? For 15 years, police in Germany found DNA of one and the same person on about 40 different crime scenes. The crimes seemed to be completely unrelated, including murder, burglary, theft and even disputes between neighbors. This person was labeled "The Phantom" and all that was known aws that she was a female (XX chromosme type female). Everyone agreed that she must have been a true monster. To keep it short, it was all a contamination of the swabs used by forensics. The DNA belonged to a worker in a factory where the swabs were produced. It took the police 15 years to find out. 15 years! I sometimes wonder what would have happened if that woman had by accident become a suspect in a crime and her DNA run through the police's DNA database. https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heilbronner_Phantom https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heilbronner_Phantom

dekhn 3y ago
Much of science involves the eliminate of false positives (this is a great example). Throughout my career as scientist (I'm an ex-scientist now) and machine learning, I came to the conclusion that false positive rates must be kept extremely low for people to trust the system, because of the consequence of false positives.

stefantalpalaru 3y ago

[dead]

karmakaze 3y ago

> [...] he confessed after a series of lengthy interrogations that several experts have described as coercive. Police found plenty of male DNA at the scene, and it did not match Tapp's. But the prosecutor and jury believed his confession. This story isn't even about DNA evidence.

jMyles 3y ago
It's true. People reliably confess to crimes they did not commit. It's just another dead canary in the cages of our justice system.
- AniseAbyss 3y ago
  [dead]
NoMoreNicksLeft 3y ago
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 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. It causes them in those who confess because they were coerced, it causes them in those who choose to falsely confess without coercion. To those who are familiar with them, those pleasant feelings can become an irresistible temptation to falsely confess. On top of that, it's been what, nearly 70 years since shows like the Twilight Zone introduced the idea to everyone that in unusual circumstances we might have done things we don't even remember. So when someone starts to break after long and even tortuous interrogations, they might themselves start to worry that they are guilty and their memories are faulty.
- psunavy03 3y ago

wizardforhire 3y ago

[flagged]

TravisCooper 3y ago
Agreed. This is absolutely immoral. I don't know how we can trust that this evidence is useful in an "real" sense.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

bborud 3y ago

DNA 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.

Simplicitas 3y ago
The alternative being?...
- elevatedastalt 3y ago
  The alternative is to have only as much confidence in anything as it deserves.
- tredre3 3y ago
  Just because we don't currently have an alternative doesn't mean we should keep using a flawed methodology.
mrguyorama 3y ago
No, the scientists behind DNA testing absolutely understand the limitations. The people who don't understand the limitations of science and possible errors in certain methods are clueless jurors and the cops who pay a random person $800 to sit on the stand, say they are "and expert" and claim there's a trillion to one odds that two people could have "the same" DNA, even though that isn't even remotely what was tested! Courts allow basically anything as long as you can pay a guy to say they are an expert and parrot whatever you want. But somehow that's treated as if it's the fault of biologists and others who do DNA analysis? Maybe our courts shouldn't be based on "Trust anything a cop says, period"
- bborud 3y ago
  That has not always been the case. They were dead wrong about the population size needed to produce false positives for the number of sites usually compared in the 1990s. These were _scientists_. Thinking that scientists have always known the limitations kind of proves my point about even most highly educated people not understanding science.

rysertio 3y ago

This is why DNA tests should always be done to exclude suspects, not to include them.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

scorpio8902 3y ago

This is a really old story. Here are the updates: Tapp was exonerated in 2019: https://innocenceproject.org/cases/christopher-tapp/ https://innocenceproject.org/cases/christopher-tapp/ Tapp receives $11.7 settlement from the City of Idaho Falls, ID, USA in 2022: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/christopher-tapp-wrongful-conviction-angie-dodge-murder-11-7-million-settlement-idaho-falls/ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/christopher-tapp-wrongful-convi... Tapp dies in Las Vegas, USA in 2023: https://www.eastidahonews.com/2023/11/chris-tapp-idaho-falls-man-wrongfully-convicted-dies-at-47/ https://www.eastidahonews.com/2023/11/chris-tapp-idaho-falls...

KMag 3y ago
$11.7 million, not $11.7.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

dang 3y ago

Recent and related: Hair sample that put a man in prison turned out to be dog hair - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39110088 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39110088 - Jan 2024 (41 comments)

TrackerFF 3y ago

Very 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.

elevatedastalt 3y ago

The 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.

AniseAbyss 3y ago

[dead]