4 ms·
This seems like a stretch. As far as I know, usually DNA evidence in exonerations is more along the lines of, "The DNA is 98% match for a known killer who was a
by jyounker 2y ago
This seems like a stretch. As far as I know, usually DNA evidence in exonerations is more along the lines of, "The DNA is 98% match for a known killer who was arrested for similar crime a few years later."
- d1sxeyes 2y agoEven that is problematic. A 98% match means there’s a 1 in 50 chance that the sample is not from the person that it’s been matched to. How many cases do you have to cross match with how many felons before you get a false positive? It’s probably not as many as you think, but I don’t have the numbers to do the maths with. Suggested reading on this topic: https://freakonomics.com/2008/08/are-the-fbis-probabilities-about-dna-matches-crazy/ https://freakonomics.com/2008/08/are-the-fbis-probabilities-...