The Case Against DNA

Hugh Pickens writes "Thanks to fast-paced television crime shows such as CSI, we have come to regard DNA evidence as incontestable. But BBC reports that David Butler has every right to be cynical about the use of DNA evidence by the police. Butler spent eight months in prison, on remand, facing murder charges after his DNA was allegedly found on the victim. 'I think in the current climate [DNA] has made police lazy,' says Butler. 'It doesn't matter how many times someone like me writes to them, imploring they look at the evidence... they put every hope they had in the DNA result.' The police had accused Butler of murdering a woman, Anne Marie Foy, in 2005 — his DNA sample was on record after he had willingly given it to them as part of an investigation into a burglary at his mother's home some years earlier. But Butler has a rare skin condition, which means he sheds flakes of skin, leaving behind much larger traces of DNA than the average person. Butler worked as a taxi driver, and so it was possible for his DNA to be transferred from his taxi via money or another person, onto the murder victim. The case eventually went to trial and Butler was acquitted after CCTV evidence allegedly placing Butler in the area where the murder took place was disproved. Professor Allan Jamieson, head of the Glasgow-based Forensic Institute, has become a familiar thorn in the side of prosecutors seeking to rely on DNA evidence and has appeared as an expert witness for the defense in several important DNA-centered trials, most notably that of Sean Hoey, who was cleared of carrying out the 1998 Omagh bombing, which killed 29 people. Jamieson's main concern about the growing use of DNA in court cases is that a number of important factors — human error, contamination, simple accident — can suggest guilt where there is none. 'Does anyone realize how easy it is to leave a couple of cells of your DNA somewhere?' says Jamieson. 'You could shake my hand and I could put that hand down hundreds of miles away and leave your cells behind. In many cases, the question is not "Is it my DNA?", but 'How did it get there?"'"

Comments

no cell phone evidence?

[alen]

everyone has one these days and your carrier knows where you are and keeps records. he must have had a really dumb lawyer not to subpoena these

Re:no cell phone evidence?

[bigstrat2003]

That would only prove where the phone was, not where the person was.

Re:no cell phone evidence?

[alen]

this is england but here in the US you need beyond a reasonable doubt. the cops can check the phone for prints and there is a record of movement by tracking every tower it hits. combine with CCTV evidence of stores and other cameras along with credit card transactions it should be fairly easy to show where you were

i've been on a criminal case jury and we ruled not guilty in a half hour because the cops had a weak case

Re:no cell phone evidence?

[bigstrat2003]

I know the standard of proof is "beyond a reasonable doubt" here, but what I raised is a reasonable doubt. It's the owner's phone, so obviously it would have prints all over it. That doesn't really help. And it's trivial for any criminal with half a brain to simply leave their phone at home, so it's extremely reasonable to doubt the phone's location as proof of the owner's location.

The phone can be used as corroborating evidence to back up evidence that already shows the person was at home (or wherever), but it's useless by itself. And if you have the other evidence, you hardly need to know where the phone was. So in either case, the phone's location is kind of a moot point.

Re:no cell phone evidence?

[RobertLTux]

Its a set of things that would be "proof"
1 the "suspects" own cell Phone
2 was in the right location
3 was IN USE
4 by somebody that sounds a whole lot like the "suspect"

otherwise yah its weak

Now DNA evidence should be considered on HOW LARGE a sample was found.

a flake of skin barely big enough to get a read on= weak
3 pints of Blood, chunk of ear./finger or a part of a tooth = Now we are talking

yeah this was dodgy.

Re:no cell phone evidence?

[Anonymous Coward]

No, there are quite a few carriers that could care less about where you were. If you have a phone from Boost Mobile or MetroPCS, just to name 2, they don't track or keep records. You could be kidnapped in broad daylight with dozens of witnesses. These carriers will not track the location of your phone.

Re:no cell phone evidence?

[MachineShedFred]

The police will try to send any kind of weak shit that they can to the district attorney, because they can then mark the case solved and blame the DA or the Grand Jury should they fail to indict. The police commanders are happy because they get the closed case stats, the prosecutors stay happy because they don't take weak shit cases to trial, so their conviction rate stays up.

Everyone else loses. The whole world shines shit and declares it to be gold.

Also, this doesn't sound like a failure of DNA, this sounds like a failure of the detectives to properly interpret trace evidence.

Re:no cell phone evidence?

[Kijori]

The "reasonable doubt" standard of proof applies only to the prosecution. The defence does not have to prove anything, either beyond reasonable doubt or to any standard of proof whatsoever. They merely have to raise enough evidence to prevent the prosecution from proving their case beyond reasonable doubt.
That being the case it's meaningless to talk about whether there is reasonable doubt as to whether the phone was in the owner's possession. That is simply never a relevant question. The question is whether, taking the case in its totality, the evidence is such that a jury could be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty. If the evidence amounted to an inconclusive DNA match and phone records that did not place his phone at the place of the murder then the evidence would certainly not be sufficient. That is the case notwithstanding that none of the evidence is directly exculpatory.
(I'm not saying that that was the totality of the evidence in this case; in fact, given that he was denied bail for 8 months, I suspect that there was both more evidence and some history of criminality. That is simply speculation however.)

Re:no cell phone evidence?

[bigstrat2003]

You're just playing with semantics. If you mentally rewrite what I said to be about how the cell phone does not raise a reasonable doubt, my point doesn't change at all. It's evidence that cannot be relied upon except in the presence of other evidence, and the presence of that other evidence would render the cell phone evidence needless.

Re:no cell phone evidence?

[aix tom]

These carriers will not track the location of your phone.

Then nobody will ever be able to call you on that phone. They *must* track where the phone is, so that they can connect the call to the right cell tower.

In the early ages of mobile (car) phones ( pre - 1990 completely analogue systems) you weren't tracked, but then the caller had to call the "area code" of the radio area he believed you were in.

Re:no cell phone evidence?

[SydShamino]

And DNA doesn't just prove where your cells where, not where you were?

Re:no cell phone evidence?

[bigstrat2003]

Strawman. I never said otherwise.

Re:no cell phone evidence?

[zzsmirkzz]

You're just playing with semantics. If you mentally rewrite what I said to be about how the cell phone does not raise a reasonable doubt, my point doesn't change at all.

But the phone indicating that the person was at his house does raise a "reasonable doubt" unless there is other evidence that proves he was somewhere else - not that his DNA was there but him. If they give a provide a reasonable explanation for how the DNA go there and have proof that his phone was somewhere else it all adds to a reasonable doubt.

Re:no cell phone evidence?

[bigstrat2003]

But in that case, the reasonable explanation is all that is needed. The cell phone can't stand on its own, it needs something to back it up. And if you have the something to back it up, you don't need the cell phone evidence too. So the phone is either not enough, or superfluous.

Re:no cell phone evidence?

[Havenwar]

Actually that's not the cell company tracking your phone, that's your phone "reporting in" to the towers. What the guy above you is talking about is whether or not the cell company keeps this information for even a second after your phone has reported in from a NEW tower. Most phone companies keep records just because they can pretty much... But in some places where that is legal some companies are still conscious enough of the privacy of their users that they don't actually track the PAST positions of their users, rather just storing the last seen cell towers.

Re:no cell phone evidence?

[zzsmirkzz]

The defense does not have to prove anything. They only need to instill reasonable doubt. The cell phone location by itself does instill doubt - I'll concede that the amount of doubt depends on the other evidence. But if there is just one, reasonably believable, alternate version of events that does not incriminate the defendant, and is not disproved by the evidence, no matter how unlikely, the jury must return a verdict of not guilty.

Re:no cell phone evidence?

[bigstrat2003]

The cell phone location, by itself, instills no doubt whatsoever in my mind because it proves nothing by itself. As I keep saying, only other evidence can instill that doubt. And your statement of "no matter how unlikely" is untrue. That's why the standard is "beyond a reasonable doubt", not "beyond any doubt".

If one starts from a blank slate, the defense has to prove nothing. But assuming that sufficiently good evidence has been presented by the prosecution, the burden is back on the defense. If they can't provide something which refutes the prosecution's case, then they have failed to instill doubt, and the cell phone isn't close to what is needed for that.

Re:no cell phone evidence?

[makomk]

Unfortunately, people - forensic scientists, detectives, prosecutors, juries, ... - have gotten the idea that DNA is basically infallible proof of guilt when in fact it's nothing of the sort.

Re:no cell phone evidence?

[cpu6502]

>>>it's trivial for any criminal with half a brain to simply leave their phone at home, so it's extremely reasonable to doubt the phone's location as proof of the owner's location.

You are right but I would weigh the evidence that shows His phone was at home, versus the evidence that they found a piece of skin in a woman's wallet, stuck to some money. I am aware of the fact that money travels between a lot of hands, especially for the defendent who is a taxi driver, so his DNA on a piece of money does not prove he murdered the woman. It just proves he touched that money.

I would consider "the phone was at home" to be enough doubt to make me say "not guilty". That doesn't mean he's innocent..... only that I don't think the government proved guilt. I would sooner let a murderer walk than jail an innocent person (as happened in Baltimore to a blackman who lost 30 years of his life for a crime he didn't commit).

Re:no cell phone evidence?

[meta-monkey]

Good thing you're not my lawyer.

If they can't provide something which refutes the prosecution's case, then they have failed to instill doubt, and the cell phone isn't close to what is needed for that.

The defense doesn't have to "provide" anything, and certainly doesn't have to "refute" anything, as the definition of refute is:

1: to prove wrong by argument or evidence : show to be false or erroneous

The very act of refutation is "proving wrong." You cannot refute unless you prove, and there is no, repeat no burden of proof on the defense. The defense does not have to prove the prosecution wrong, or show that any of their evidence or facts are incorrect. The defense can cede every fact and piece of evidence the prosecution can provide but simply raise enough doubt that this evidence is sufficient to reasonably prove their case. The defense can be successful simply telling another tale with the same evidence.

For instance, the police arrive on the scene to find bigstrat2003 and zzsmirkzz locked in room with a dead prostitute. A knife is buried in the back of the prostitute's neck. Both people are wearing gloves, neither has blood spatter on them, and neither of them are talking. The prosecution claims "bigstrat2003 did it! He was in the room, he had the opportunity, and bigstrat2003 bought the knife earlier that day!" You don't have to prove you weren't in the room. Don't have to prove you didn't buy the knife. You can cede you had the opportunity. You don't have to even say "I didn't do it." All the defense has to say is, "Isn't it possible bigstrat2003 gave the knife to zzsmirkzz, and zzsmirkzz killed him?" Done, reasonable doubt established, and bigstrat2003 walks. No "refutation" required.

Does that make sense now? You don't have to prove or refute anything to establish "reasonable doubt." Just tell another story with the same facts that could be "reasonably" true. However, the more evidence the prosecution has, and the stronger that evidence is, the harder it becomes to tell another story that fits the facts and is still reasonable. If 30 million people watched you murder someone on live TV while it was recorded from 15 different camera angles, and police apprehended you immediately, you could cede all those facts and claim it was not, in fact you, but a doppleganger from an alternate dimension who switched places back with you immediately after committing the crime, but that would hardly be "reasonable."

Re:no cell phone evidence?

[James McGuigan]

Technically the defense doesn't need to "prove" anything, but after all is said and done, your chances boil down the opinion of 12 of your "peers" sitting in the jury chair.

The goal of the prosecution is not so much to "prove" the case in a mathematical sense, though that does tend to help the case, but rather to convince the 12 members of the jury that you are guilty. There are a whole list of logical fallacies that might just convince a jury uneducated in formal logic, its a reasonable assumption to make.

Re:no cell phone evidence?

[Hognoxious]

this is england but here in the US you need beyond a reasonable doubt

Well aren't you just awesome! Now go and shout "Number one!" a lot while fapping off to pictures of Sarah Palin.

Re:no cell phone evidence?

[Hognoxious]

Wrong. They'd both go down under the doctrine of common purpose.

Re:no cell phone evidence?

[zzsmirkzz]

The cell phone location, by itself, instills no doubt whatsoever in my mind because it proves nothing by itself.

As a single juror okay this might not instill any doubt for you but you can't speak for the other 11.

And your statement of "no matter how unlikely" is untrue. That's why the standard is "beyond a reasonable doubt"

I said at the beginning of my statement that "if there is just one, reasonably believable, alternate version..." so I already covered that the doubt is "Reasonable". A version of events can be unlikely and still be reasonably supported by the evidence the two are not mutually exclusive.

Re:no cell phone evidence?

[RockDoctor]

this is england but here in the US you need beyond a reasonable doubt.

In England, criminal cases need to be proven "beyond reasonable doubt" too. The American adversarial legal system is derived from the English system, and inherits many of it's flaws as well as it's strengths. For example,

1. there is no person in the adversarial system who is actually interested in getting to the truth of an event (prosecution is interested in getting a conviction ; defence in getting their client off ; no-one is interested in the truth). In contrast many of the continental legal systems have a "judge of investigation", whose task is to find out what happened and why, while other lawyers then go on to perform the prosecution ; in cases of unintentional deaths from machinery malfunctions for example, this can make a huge difference in ultimate outcome.
2. In England and America, there are only two verdicts available (guilty or not guilty) ; whereas England's Scottish neighbours also have the option of "not proven", in which case there is no punishment, but the case remains open and goes onto the accused's criminal record ; a retrial, with novel evidence, remains possible.
3. The 15-person Scottish jury is also less prone to stalemate.

Re:no cell phone evidence?

[Anonymous Coward]

The exact phrase you used was "no matter how unlikely".

Do you think the possibility that the person caught on twenty three cameras was actually an alien shapeshifter equates to reasonable doubt?

I Guess This Is What Happens When I Don't Watch TV

[eldavojohn]

Thanks to fast-paced television crime shows such as CSI: Crime Scene Investigation, we have come to regard DNA evidence as uncontestable.

Why is an unrealistic American television show being referenced about a case in Liverpool by a UK news source? Is horrible American television that prevalent? I'm not seeing The Mighty Boosh referenced in The New York Times in regards to the legalization of marijuana. And who cares if a television show makes the public think DNA evidence is incontestable? That xenophobic vapid televisions series 24 appears to be proof positive justification for torture and Judge Dread style murder but that should not alter the way our courts rule.

The prosecution in Liverpool Crown Court has no other proof that ties Butler to the murder — showing just how much store they place in the science.

Okay, congratulations, that has to be the most jaw dropping thing I've read in quite sometime about justice in the UK. Are you serious? DNA should be used as one piece of a very large puzzle used to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that this person was present at some point in time. It is a flawed process and should be used as one piece of many pieces of evidence against someone. If you put that much weight on it, framing someone just became a one step process. Hopefully it will improve but just as hopefully it will always remain as one supporting piece of evidence requiring many other avenues of evidence before a conviction.

Obligatory wank joke

[Hognoxious]

'Does anyone realize how easy it is to leave a couple of cells of your DNA somewhere?' says Jamieson. 'You could shake my hand

Indeed, rapid hand movements are a sure fire way of spraying DNA around.

Re:Obligatory wank joke

[VortexCortex]

'Does anyone realize how easy it is to leave a couple of cells of your DNA somewhere?' says Jamieson. 'You could shake my hand

Indeed, rapid hand movements are a sure fire way of spraying DNA around.

You jest, but tossing away a disposable cup after drinking from it, or running your fingers through your hair is just as "sure fire". Think about that -- Is there someone who sort of matches your basic physical description watching you, picking up a strand of hair, a used cup or piece of napkin you left behind? Oh sure, what are the odds a criminal is smart enough to be framing you for their next crime? That's what the police will say too. Occam's Razor is Deadly.

Butler eh?

[tsa]

Everybody knows the butler always did it!

Re:Butler eh?

[Anonymous Coward]

The butler (and his accomplice the maid, and their acquaintance the nanny) also has easy access to multiple sources of DNA.

But then so does the TSA. No?

Re:Butler eh?

[fustakrakich]

"...you lose! It was Professor Plum!"

Re:Butler eh?

[tsa]

Everybody has easy access to DNA. It's one of the most abundant biomolecules on the planet.

Blood Lies

[Anonymous Coward]

Reminds me of a book I read, "Blood Lies". Very interesting yet DNA-centric plot.

http://www.amazon.com/Blood-Lies-Daniel-Kalla/dp/0765318326

Phantom of Heilbronn

[Anonymous Coward]

Contaminated DNA samples can even lead to imaginary super criminals:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phantom_of_Heilbronn

Re:Phantom of Heilbronn

[coinreturn]

Sucks to work in a Q-tip factory, huh?

Error rates

[betterunixthanunix]

It is not like DNA matching is as exact as solving a math problem. There is experimental error, and the error rates are sufficiently high that DNA evidence should never be considered enough to convict someone; DNA evidence with additional supporting evidence should be the minimum standard.

Re:Error rates

[Anonymous Coward]

Afraid you will be thrown out of the GOP and forced into the Log Cabin?

That log cabin is getting pretty full, you might just have yourself a fun time, but remember to hate yourself for it later.

Re:Error rates

[Anonymous Coward]

PCR can have as much as 40% errors inherent in the amplification stage of the gel process.

That's why...

[Anonymous Coward]

I walk around everywhere completely covered in saran wrap.

Wait...what?

[KrazyDave]

",,,evidence allegedly placing Butler in the area where the murder took place was disproved." So the Butler *didn't* do it this time?

Because CSI is real

[overmoderated]

NOT

Re:Because CSI is real

[Desler]

Yes, but it's not just CSI that has played up the whole DNA evidence angle. It pops up in movies, other television shows, mystery novels, etc. Only focusing on the 'shows like CSI' is missing the point and shows ounare just being an obtuse pedant.

Re:I Guess This Is What Happens When I Don't Watch

[IAmR007]

Plus, if they had any idea as to how science works, they would know that one datum doesn't constitute reliable evidence at all. Even finding the same DNA in multiple locations doesn't rule out systematic contamination. Multiple types of evidence are needed to confirm causation with anything. It scares me that people's entire lives can depend on methods that would get any scientist laughed out of the room.

Willful Frame Jobs

[ThatsNotPudding]

That is what is so terrifying about the police having DNA samples on hand apriori: NO MORE UNSOLVED CASES!! Contaminate the evidence with someone's DNA you already have on hand (if you don't like them for racial, political, or personal reasons, that's just gravy), and bingo! Instant conviction by idiot juries who can't spell GUILTY without using the letters D, N, and A.

Re:Willful Frame Jobs

[DesScorp]

That is what is so terrifying about the police having DNA samples on hand apriori: NO MORE UNSOLVED CASES!! Contaminate the evidence with someone's DNA you already have on hand (if you don't like them for racial, political, or personal reasons, that's just gravy), and bingo! Instant conviction by idiot juries who can't spell GUILTY without using the letters D, N, and A.

Also, isn't casting doubt on DNA based evidence also a double edged sword? You've got groups like the Innocence Project that rely almost entirely on DNA as a means of proving their client's innocence. If you can cast doubt on DNA evidence when trying to convict someone, you can also cast doubt on that evidence when trying to prove someone innocent.

Re:Willful Frame Jobs

[Desler]

Sure, if the standpoint was that all DNA evidence was faulty and wrong, but that isn't the point. Is is merely about how people should be more skeptical and questioning of DNA evidence validity on convicting someone. It's not saying DNA evidence should never be used or accepted.

Re:Willful Frame Jobs

[Anonymous Coward]

You miss the point.

DNA evidence is such an interpretive human error prone procedure. However, guilt must be a 100% match while innocence is any mismatch whatsoever.

But for the most part, DNA evidence is proving itself to be junk science.

Re:Willful Frame Jobs

[IndustrialComplex]

Not really. The perfect DNA test returns a result of a comparison between Sample A, and Sample B. The results are either 'MATCH, NO MATCH, or inconclusive'.

The problem is that people are basically adding meta-data to the Yes/No/error results. A confirmation a match is nothing more than a confirmation of a match, it doesn't tell you a single thing more than that. It doesn't even tell you that the person producing that DNA was there. Additional evidence is necessary in order to draw that conclusion.

However, this is NOT a problem with the traditional exculpatory DNA evidence. The casting of doubt is on the meta-results of the DNA, not the match/mismatch itself.

Thus, with exculpatory DNA evidence, the defence isn't trying to prove that the Defendant was in any particular location, all they are trying to prove is that DNA sample A does/doesn't match DNA sample B.

If you have a DNA sample from a crime scene, and I'm trying to show that such a sample does not match my client, it doesn't matter if my client was in the room, out of the room, or 3,000 miles away. If the DNA doesn't match, then the DNA doesn't match. I'm not trying to prove anything more than that.

It is the prosecution that is trying to add that extra data to the DNA, not the defense. The prosecutor has to first show that the DNA matches, THEN the prosecutor must also present evidence that the DNA could only be where it was because the defendant put it there.

Again, the DNA becomes a non-issue (for the purposes of identifying the defendent) for the defence the instant it doesn't match the defendent (in general)

Re:Willful Frame Jobs

[misexistentialist]

The prosecution must present certain proof, while the defense just has to come up with reasonable doubt. Of course the government tilts the scales back in its favor, so DNA would probably never be admissible if prosecutors couldn't use it.

Re:Willful Frame Jobs

[Kijori]

That's quite a conclusion to draw from this story. Unless I'm missing something there is no suggestion that Mr Butler was framed, and the jury found him innocent.

The article is far more nuanced - it raises questions over the manner in which forensic work has been privatised and split up, leading to a situation where untrained officers are required to determine what forensic evidence to look for and what tests to perform. That's a worrisome prospect but I can't see in it the slightest suggestion of your scenario.

Re:Willful Frame Jobs

[sjames]

Not really, it's an asymmetric relation. Having my DNA on something can be lab error, cross contamination, innocent casual contact, etc, etc, etc.

NOT finding my DNA when there was intimate contact involved in the crime is actually fairly strong evidence that I wasn't there at all.

That is, DNA evidence is strongly exclusionary but only weakly inclusive.

Re:Willful Frame Jobs

[Anonymous Coward]

Also, isn't casting doubt on DNA based evidence also a double edged sword? You've got groups like the Innocence Project that rely almost entirely on DNA as a means of proving their client's innocence. If you can cast doubt on DNA evidence when trying to convict someone, you can also cast doubt on that evidence when trying to prove someone innocent.

Except defense only has to create reasonable doubt.

Re:I Guess This Is What Happens When I Don't Watch

[zixxt]

FYI CSI is the most watched TV show in the world. And CSI and DNA go together like a horse and carriage.

Re:I Guess This Is What Happens When I Don't Watch

[betterunixthanunix]

DNA should be used as one piece of a very large puzzle used to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that this person was present at some point in time

Within some error margin, and that error margin is quite a bit higher than you might expect. If you do not exclude identical twins, even if there were no laboratory errors at all, the probability of finding two people with the same DNA profile would be 1 in 1000; when laboratory errors are included in the analysis, that probability can become high enough to pass the threshold of "reasonable doubt."

Even if we assume no lab errors, no identical twins, and no measurement errors, DNA evidence is still not sufficient. I could plant someone's DNA at a crime scene without too much difficulty (consider how many personal items in your bathroom will have testable DNA on them -- a razor, a toothbrush, a comb). There have been cases of criminals finding ways to substitute another person's DNA for their own, including one case of a doctor who actually managed to hide another person's blood in one of his veins, thus faking his innocence.

One data point is not enough to draw any sort of conclusion; it might point you in the right direction, but nothing more.

Re:I Guess This Is What Happens When I Don't Watch

[Desler]

Why is an unrealistic American television show being referenced about a case in Liverpool by a UK news source? Is horrible American television that prevalent?

Because you're being an intentionally obtuse pedant. First of all, the statement said 'shows like CSI' and if you think international crime shows don't use DNA evidence the same way you're quite naive. The specific show wasn't the point and the reason this is a problem is that popular culture shows has inflated DNA evidence as being some 100% accurate measure of guilt such that juries now will demand DNA evidence in order to even fathom the idea that the persn was guilty. Also, theynare easily misled by DNA evodence in wrongfully convicting people since they don't understand the probabilities or other curcumstances involved that could lead to the DNA being at the crime scene. Hell, The Independent in the UK wrote an article about juries being misled by DNA evidence back in 1994.

Also, yes, CSI has aired internationally for many years with the U.K. being one of those places. Many American shows air internationally. That this is somehow news to you is hilarious.

Black man and White man Match in Database

[vertigovegan]

Slashdot had an article years ago about how people match within the DNA data base when you point it at itself for matches. Most notably was a black man and a white man that match. Someone pull that article up.

http://www.blackherbals.com/crime_labs_finding_questionable_DNA_matches.htm

Re:Black man and White man Match in Database

[Dr Damage I]

That's a result of the birthday paradox. In a one person to one person comparison, the chance of having the same birthdate is 1 in 365. If you compare each of 23 people to each of the others, the chance of matching the birthdates is 1 in 2 and the chance rises to 99% at 57 individuals (see birthday problem wiki). The same issue means that even with arbitrarily low rates of false positives, if your database is large enough, the chances of samples from two different individuals matching improve drastically.

District Attornies

[ThatsNotPudding]

Virtually all of them aspire to high political office, thus they are hard-core 'Law and Order' a-holes and more than willing to ingore or suppress evidence or scene DNA contamination.

Look at their behaviour when DNA is not on their side; older cases where no DNA of the suspect is found. They always say the same thing: no, we got the right man; he was just more careful than his 'unindicted co-conspiritor'...

Scumbags.

Re:District Attornies

[Anonymous Coward]

So I propose a law. If it's found that the prosecution suppressed evidence, then they must serve the maximum sentence for the charges brought forward against the defendant if they would have been found guilty.

That would make things really interesting if and when prosecution members were sent to life in prison or sent off to death row if they suppressed evidence and were found out, assuming such a law was actually in effect. Or even if they had to serve 25 to life for suppressing evidence.

Re:District Attornies

[Kijori]

It's worth bearing in mind that this case is from the UK, where the case is directed by the Crown Prosecution Service using evidence gathered by the Police. There is no equivalent to a District Attorney.

Re:I Guess This Is What Happens When I Don't Watch

[eldavojohn]

It doesn't claim to be even remotely factual.

And CSI does? Here's a proposed sentence for you: "Modern television like The Mighty Boosh has a lot of people thinking that smoking marijuana is spiritual, fun, cool and without any repercussion." It doesn't have to be factual for a news source to cite it as evidence of its influence on public perception.

By "it" I mean TMB, though if the cap fits...

Wow, I bet The New York Times is just seething after that burn. I'll get Will Shortz on the phone right now and see if he can write crosswords for a more reputable news source like The New York Post. I used The New York Times as an equivalently average news source for Americans as the Telegraph is for the UK. The New York Times is more than due for criticism but "you can do better" like getting some actual examples of them publishing lies.

5/10. You can do better.

Yeah well, you've marked me as a foe so don't expect me to care about your baseless rating system or even try to "do better" in whatever dimension you define as better.

Re:I Guess This Is What Happens When I Don't Watch

[hilltaker7]

I think, what it comes down to, is that what every prosecutor, lawyer, solicitor, etc... wants are winnable cases. Unfortunately, due to shows such as CSI, many members of the public honestly believe that DNA evidence is fool-proof. While this is certainly not the truth; law professionals are more then willing to run with no other evidence because they can win those cases. So, until the general public get's inclined to increase their level of knowledge in this area (so not likely) more innocent people will be put behind bars due to lazy bureaucrats.

Re:I Guess This Is What Happens When I Don't Watch

[fiannaFailMan]

Why is an unrealistic American television show being referenced about a case in Liverpool by a UK news source?

American TV shows are hugely popular in the UK. British shows don't travel across the Atlantic so well, so their comedy often has to be translated into an American version where the jokes are spelled out more explicitly to fit with American humour. Hence American versions of British shows strike the British audience as not being funny.

I digress.

I agree that CSI is unrealistic. I watched it once and thought it was badly written and badly acted sci-fi. They show technology that clearly does not exist. Their depiction of the Irish sport of Hurling and the Indian Holi festival were positively cringeworthy, and the storyline was where they solved the most unlikely coincidental killing ever.

There were reports on /. about the "CSI effect" before, where juries are having their judgement skewed by the unrealistic expectations raised by shows like CSI. A lot of "traditional" evidence like eyewitness accounts are being disregarded by juries and potential perps are being released because juries are expecting impossibly high standards of proof using DNA evidence when there is plenty of sufficient non-forensic evidence that is just as admissible.

Unreasonable doubt

[Anonymous Coward]

The big problem here is the wild and wacky lies told by defence lawyers clouding the issue for juries too dim to exercise occams razor. DNA don't lie.

Re:I Guess This Is What Happens When I Don't Watch

[Desler]

Prosecutors themselves tend to be at fault for this, too. They will eiteher highly downplay the probabilities part or will outright not mention that DNA matching is not exact. Pop culture is surely a big part of the claim but its abuse by police and prosecutors should not be understated.

Re:I Guess This Is What Happens When I Don't Watch

[Anonymous Coward]

First of all, the statement said 'shows like CSI' and if you think international crime shows don't use DNA evidence the same way you're quite naive.

Then why not use said "international crime shows" like those in the UK with which its readership would be most familiar?

Yes, we shed skin

[fustakrakich]

and the occasional eyelash... Remember to regularly clean your keyboard...

Re:I Guess This Is What Happens When I Don't Watch

[Desler]

Juries were be misled by the supposed infallibility of DNA evidence long before shows like CSI existed, though shows like CSI have definitely only served to make things worse.

Re:I Guess This Is What Happens When I Don't Watch

[Desler]

Bcause CSI is shown in the UK and in dozens of other countries so it's a convenient example that most people would have heard of. Midsomer Murders has used DNA evidence just as misleading as CSI but it eould have had less recognition than a show that is one of the highest rated and most watched shows worldwide.

Depends...

[fahrbot-bot]

Does anyone realize how easy it is to leave a couple of cells of your DNA somewhere?

... on the quality of the bar, day of the week, and hour of the night.

[ Sorry, I forgot this is /. ... ]

Re:I Guess This Is What Happens When I Don't Watch

[reub2000]

Isn't it the job of the lawyer working for the defense to point out flaws in the argument made by the prosecutor?

Re:I Guess This Is What Happens When I Don't Watch

[garyoa1]

Weill I like CSI. But if you watch closely you'll realize that it's essentially a sci-fi show. Most folks miss that and take it for text book fact. We aren't even really close to the "technology" they use.
If you think it's factual... well, I've got this bridge to sell you... ;)

Re:I Guess This Is What Happens When I Don't Watch

[eldavojohn]

Why is an unrealistic American television show being referenced about a case in Liverpool by a UK news source? Is horrible American television that prevalent?

Because you're being an intentionally obtuse pedant.

Thanks! I value your counterpoint and would like to propose a converse suggestion although unlike you I don't have to resort to name-calling in the process to get my point across. It is my suspicion that when something goes wrong the rest of the world likes to blame it on Americans -- even when it's more accurately an international blame. A great example of this is from your post:

First of all, the statement said 'shows like CSI' and if you think international crime shows don't use DNA evidence the same way you're quite naive.

So what you're saying is that all modern crime drama use DNA evidence ... but when those dramas are negatively influencing rational thought, it's those stupid Americans and their television that are causing Liverpudlian court cases to go awry. Yep, those Yanks sure are thick. And we are, but it does get tiresome when everything is our fault.

That this is somehow news to you is hilarious.

Well I'm glad you find such great humor in my lack of watching British television.

Also, theynare easily misled by DNA evodence

And now you know what I find hilarious.

Tell Todd Akin

[erikwestlund]

I'm told that police have a way of "shutting the whole thing down" in the case of illegitimate DNA transfer.

Only because other evidence was ruled out

[Anonymous Coward]

CCTV evidence of her getting into his Taxi was ruled inadmissable and another prostitute was deemed an unreliable witness.

The system is broken!

[Anonymous Coward]

Get rid of the justice system altogether!

I'm obviously kidding, but some nutcases that lurk around here would love to see that happen.

Re:I Guess This Is What Happens When I Don't Watch

[Desler]

No, no one is blaming Americans. CSI is just a convenient example considering it's the most watched show internationally. Stop being such a pedant about that specific sentence. They could have said 'Shows like Midsomer Murders' but do you think more or less people would have heard of that versus CSI? Even people who don't watch CSI can tell tou what it is whereas the other would get you mostly blank stares.

Re:I Guess This Is What Happens When I Don't Watch

[Desler]

Yes, but many on a jury are still more likely to be swayed by the prosecution if they have DNA evidence on their side versus some defense expert throwing probabilities and other things at them that goes over most people's heads. It's an unfortunate reality.

Fact: Fingerprints are more reliable than DNA

[gurps_npc]

Yes, believe it or not, fingerprints are far more reliable than DNA.

1) It is much harder to move a fingerprint to frame someone. Yes, you could unscrew a light switch from your framing target, and trade it with the dead guys, but that can be detected fairly easy. You can on the other hand, grab a hairbrush from a framing victim and remove some hairs and leave it at the dead guy's body. Not to mention that it is incredibly easy to copy DNA - that's what makes it the stuff of light..

2) Some people have the same DNA as other people (Twin) and some people have 2+ DNA in their own body (Chimera). There has not been a known case of two people having the same fingerprint and no finger can have more than one fingerprint.

3) They do a full scan of your fingerprints. The police only examine a tiny sub-section of your DNA. When they don't get the full fingerprint, they call it a "partial". All DNA is 'partial', but they don't tell the jury that - they imply that they test it all.

So yes, DNA is not perfect.

Re:I Guess This Is What Happens When I Don't Watch

[hilltaker7]

Certainly, but when the public has been fully indoctrinated into the Hollywood church of DNA, often no amount of reason can fully persuade them to question their faith.

Who controls the DNA?

[Anonymous Coward]

Simple.

1) Get a group.

2) Kidnap someone.

3) Drug them.

4) Torture and take DNA.

5) Get them to the ER.

6) Replace them in the hospital room.

7) Commit crimes and get away by leaving their DNA.

Re:I Guess This Is What Happens When I Don't Watch

[Anonymous Coward]

Stop being such a pedant about that specific sentence.

Couldn't the same be said of you concentrating on the OP's brief bewilderment of CSI's worldwide influence?

Re:I Guess This Is What Happens When I Don't Watch

[reub2000]

Okay, from watching crime shows, I've seen a plenty of episodes where DNA evidence is left by a person who turns out to not be the killer. These shows like to play fast and loose with forensic technology, but if the crime could be solved instantly using some magical technology like DNA how would the script writers fill up a 40 minute show? In fact one episode of Lie To Me centered around the main character leaving DNA on the victim. Are people really getting that DNA evidence proves guilt from TV shows?

Judges agree

[virgnarus]

Honorable Judge Dredd can tell you that DNA evidence isn't reliable enough to convict someone.

Re:Judges agree

[PNutts]

I was thinking Judge Lance Ito.

Elementary

[gmuslera]

Sounds ironic that the country from where born Conan Doyle, Agatha Christie and a lot others take out deduction and just focus in what would do an US tv show in that case with a very partial evidence.

Re:Elementary

[Anonymous Coward]

Can you translate this to English for the rest of us? This run-on sentence is attrocious and the person who modded you up should be slapped.

Re:Elementary

[ThatsMyNick]

Sure, here you go

Re:I Guess This Is What Happens When I Don't Watch

[Desler]

Yes. Pop culture has been shown to have had a huge effect on how juries view DNA evidence or its lack thereof in a case. It's pretty well documented at this point.

Re:I Guess This Is What Happens When I Don't Watch

[Jane Q. Public]

"It scares me that people's entire lives can depend on methods that would get any scientist laughed out of the room."

I have been saying this for years. It is ridiculously easy to contaminate or even plant DNA. Fingerprints are relatively hard to fake, and they don't "accidentally" move from place to place. However, DNA does accidentally move from place to place. Worse: drop a few skin scrapings or spit from someone in the right places, and watch the police foam at the mouth in rabid excitement.

It's worse than ridiculous. It's a tragedy that doesn't need to exist.

Re:I Guess This Is What Happens When I Don't Watch

[evanbd]

There have been cases of criminals finding ways to substitute another person's DNA for their own, including one case of a doctor who actually managed to hide another person's blood in one of his veins, thus faking his innocence.

Do you have a link for that? It sounds fascinating.

Re:I Guess This Is What Happens When I Don't Watch

[reub2000]

No, that's not what I'm asking. I'm asking if crime shows really do show DNA evidence as infallible.

Learn please

[Yakasha]

"Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law."

These are not magic words. It is a statement of fact. The emphasis I've added is what is important to you (IANAL, but nobody needs to be to understand the basics).
There are only a couple, very easy to remember, things that should come out of your mouth when talking to law enforcement of any kind if you want to avoid being detained for 8 months for something you didn't do:

1. Name, Date of Birth, address of residence.

2. Am I being detained / Am I free to go?

3. I cannot speak to you without my lawyer present.

That. Is. It.

Don't be a jerk to cops, but do not offer information. Even if they ask nicely.

Re:Learn please

[CanHasDIY]

Well said.

Further resources regarding the proper way to handle yourself when confronted by police can be found here

Re:Learn please

[nedlohs]

That's the US though, the UK has a different statement of fact: "it may harm your defence if you fail to mention when questioned something you later rely on in court"

Re:Learn please

[Yakasha]

That's the US though, the UK has a different statement of fact: "it may harm your defence if you fail to mention when questioned something you later rely on in court"

You're too far down the legal road. These 3 points apply equally well in the UK as they do in the US for the point in legal proceedings that I'm talking about: Your first encounter with law enforcement.

The UK rules are simply setup to encompass more forms of communication (namely, being quiet) than just verbal. Imagine a kid swirling the dirt with his toes rather than verbally saying "yes, I did" when asked "Did you take a cookie from the jar?" In the UK, they'll look at both as admission, the verbal one simply being explicit and clear. But that doesn't change the very real fact that any time you are presented with a question that you know you cannot answer without lying or admitting guilt, or when you simply have no idea what is going on and want 5 minutes to think about it, you have a third option:

"I want legal counsel."

Once you say that, the UK is no different than the US. Barring very special circumstances, the police leave you alone until you speak to your legal counsel.

Re:Learn please

[nedlohs]

Obviously you get a lawyer do what they advise. But that's beside the point, which was that those words are not a 'statement of fact' in the UK, they aren't said at all in the UK and hence aren't even just a statement.

Your US lawyer will tell you to "no comment" far more often that the UK lawyer due to differences in the results of doing so in the two legal systems.

Re:I Guess This Is What Happens When I Don't Watch

[tibit]

Eyewitness accounts are yes, traditional, and about just as bad/good as DNA is. They can't stand on their own. Eyewitnesses routinely lie, and not necessarily because they intend to, but because people are horrible at accurate recall. We imagine we're much better than we really are. Think about it like this: you supposedly remember down to the last detail what happened at some time and place. Yet, how easy it is for most of us to learn at school? Do you read a book once and go to the exam with total recall (where recall is called for, vs. analytic skills)? Then why the heck do we expect mostly uninterested parties to offer what amounts to total recall of stuff they witnessed?

Re:I Guess This Is What Happens When I Don't Watch

[Desler]

Not outright, but when shows like CSI will often wrap up at the point of finding DNA evidence and having the police arresting the suspect the audience never really gets exposed to the other side of things. Thus, they are left with an inaccurate perception whether or not it was intentional on the part of the show writers versus just being a convenient way to wrap up.

Re:I Guess This Is What Happens When I Don't Watch

[hiryuu]

Do you have a link for that? It sounds fascinating.

Seconded, as I'm curious. :)

Re:I Guess This Is What Happens When I Don't Watch

[element-o.p.]

Why is an unrealistic American television show being referenced about a case in Liverpool by a UK news source?...It is a flawed process and should be used as one piece of many pieces of evidence against someone. If you put that much weight on it, framing someone just became a one step process. Hopefully it will improve but just as hopefully it will always remain as one supporting piece of evidence requiring many other avenues of evidence before a conviction.

I think you answered your own question there. What I got from TFS was that despite the fact that DNA evidence "...is a flawed process..." the public's perception (which is due, in no small part, to television shows like CSI) is that it is infallible evidence. "Oh, you're DNA was present on the victim? Done deal, you're guilty."

Unfortunately, AFAIK, DNA evidence isn't a digital (i.e., yes or no) proposition, it's a matter of probability: the answer is "there is a xx% chance that this DNA belongs to the accused," where "xx" is some number less than 100. However, as long as the people on the jury believe what they see on TV, they put undue faith in DNA evidence. When the cops show up with an expert in tow saying that, in his (or her) professional opinion, there is indeed a match between the accused's DNA and the DNA found on the victim, the tendency among the CSI-brainwashed public is to automatically jump to the conclusion that the accused is guilty, ignoring all of the evidence suggesting otherwise, and neglecting to consider the possible, plausible ways in which it could have gotten there *without* the accused having committed the crime. Your exactly right -- that isn't the way it's supposed to work, and that's the point this article is bringing up.

Re:I Guess This Is What Happens When I Don't Watch

[Anonymous Coward]

Here. He surgically implanted a vial of someone else's blood into his arm prior to taking the DNA test. He manipulated the collector to take it from his arm rather than the standard finger prick.

Re:I Guess This Is What Happens When I Don't Watch

[Desler]

Which is why juries should be far more skeptical than they are of evidence offered by the prosecution in light of the numerous documented cases of wrongful conviction that has stolen countless years from people and in some cases their life. Too many people view their job on a jury in a criminal case as being nothing more than to get a conviction in. This is not to say they should just believe anything the defense says, but one side has a much larger amount of power that can potentially ruin innocent lives versus the other.

Re:I Guess This Is What Happens When I Don't Watch

[element-o.p.]

So what you're saying is that all modern crime drama use DNA evidence ... but when those dramas are negatively influencing rational thought, it's those stupid Americans and their television that are causing Liverpudlian court cases to go awry. Yep, those Yanks sure are thick. And we are, but it does get tiresome when everything is our fault.

Dude, chill :) I'm a Yank too, but I didn't get that out of TFS* or anyone else's posts here. There is a difference between what is implied, and what is inferred. I think you have *inferred* far more than the author intended.

* in true /. tradition, I didn't RTFA, so if TFA more explicitly blames Americans, then I respectfully withdraw my comment.

Re:I Guess This Is What Happens When I Don't Watch

[SomePgmr]

I really dislike CSI for a long list of reasons, but I'll give the writers some credit here - at least the "omg we have the DNA's" is usually a setup for an interview (interrogation) where they use it as pressure and the murderer gives up everything when they realize they're caught. It's how they wrap up the crime story bit. There's also usually another element there, like "that gas station happened to have Las Vegas style, super high-res security cameras with $1,000 lenses, and you posed for them". You know, something to make it look like they're more than just semen collectors.

Re:I Guess This Is What Happens When I Don't Watch

[SuricouRaven]

The silly thing really... Crime scene analysts are just the forensics people. They shouldn't even be interviewing witnesses, or doing any non-forensics investigation at all. They aren't trained for it. They do the forensics, write the report, and the report goes off to the detectives.

Re:I Guess This Is What Happens When I Don't Watch

[nedlohs]

Why is an unrealistic American television show being referenced about a case in Liverpool by a UK news source?

Bacause most jurors do watch TV, that you don't is irrelevant. CSI is the defining show of that genre - you may notice the phrase "show such as CSI" was used not only CSI. Even jurors who don't watch such TV shows likely read a newspaper or watch news written by people who have watched said shows and that portray DNA evidence as a slam-dunk.

Not just DNA

[PeanutButterBreath]

Interesting to note that both DNA and CCTV evidence were unreliable in this case. If neither of those two are reliable, and they can both be wrong in the same case, and I suspect that most would agree that these should be expected to be more reliable than eye-witness and circumstantial evidence, one has to ask some profound questions about the modern systems of criminal justice.

Open up the quality control steps

[awilden]

One thing that's horribly misleading is when prosecutors say "the likelihood of this match occurring at random is one in a quadrillion" or similar. If there aren't a quadrillion people on the planet, that statement means nothing. Also it's based on a lot of independence assumptions that may or not pan out. The irony is that the answer is out there - with all of the DNA database information that's been compiled by different law enforcement agencies, there is the ability to actually go and test to see whether there are duplicates out there, what the sharing rate is between siblings, twins and parent/children, and so on, so that you can get real measurements instead of probabilistic arguments. If current tests turn out to uniquely identify subjects, the jury should hear "this DNA uniquely identifies this person as its source".

But then as the article points out you also need to turn to the quality control aspect. Identify the potential sources of contamination, quantify those sources through experimental means. Currently agencies do not do blind tests to see what the error rate is in labs. Crime labs should be tested in blind situations to see what their quality rate is. Then you can bring out during the trial "this lab has successfully passed 100 QC tests in the last 2 years and has never failed one" or "this lab failed 2 QC tests out of 100, but the person who failed both has been discharged" or any other information that allows jurors to assess what the error rate is in the other steps in the process. Similarly, success rates are dependent on the size of the sample; if you start from 8 strands of DNA how much does your result degrade when compared with a cheek swab? We just don't have those numbers now, and there's no reason we don't.

DNA is an amazing tool in the crime database. It solves crimes that have not been solved and helps put bad guys behind bars who would have gotten away. But it is not magic or infallible. Quantifying the sources of error and presenting them during trial is the right thing to do.

Re:Open up the quality control steps

[zzsmirkzz]

DNA is an amazing tool in the crime database.

No, it is not. The current testing/matching methods put the chance of a duplicate at (I believe) 1 in 1000 - that's a whole lot of duplicates if you have a country or state-wide database. DNA is amazing tool in identifying a single person out of a small amount of suspects with the means and motive to commit the crime, say 1 out of 10 or 20. The probability of finding a duplicate in that small sample-pool is very small. This is why any attempt at building a comprehensive DNA database should be fought vigorously.

Re:Open up the quality control steps

[tobiah]

I worked on code for a forensic DNA device. The FBI selected and standardized the DNA segments to be examined a long time ago, when it was harder to do and they didn't think they would be comparing millions of samples. Even though we could have made the device's test more accurate, it would not have violated standards and we wouldn't have been able to sell it for forensic purposes. At the time there were about two million people in their database, and you would expect several hundred matches per test.
Another issue that came up is genetic drift; your cells rearrange their code depending on their function. You'd think that wouldn't have much affect on the individual segments being compared, but for whatever reason it does. I haven't seen a proper study on it, but there's a reasonable chance your skin, hair and blood won't match each other. The FBI doesn't have guidelines on where the sample comes from, often does not enter in the DB where the sample came from, and that info is not used in the analysis.
There are also mutations over time, so that you may not match yourself from twenty years earlier. And of course certain parts you your body mutate faster than other parts, particularly the exposed, fast-growing organs.

Re:Open up the quality control steps

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: "If there aren't a quadrillion people on the planet, that statement means nothing".

Ah, no. A prosecutor will typically voice such a statement of accuracy with 2 implied messages to the audience (judge & jury):

1). We've done our homework on the error rates, so fear not;
2). The chances of us being wrong are greater than the number of people on the planet. Most ordinary citizens will then extrapolate that this means the evidence is not wrong.

Re:I Guess This Is What Happens When I Don't Watch

[interval1066]

British shows don't travel across the Atlantic so well, so their comedy often has to be translated into an American version where the jokes are spelled out more explicitly to fit with American humour.

You sound like an American tv producer, not an American. Me and most of my friends prefer Britcoms to Sitcoms; example, the Office. British version far superior in every way. So stick your "American humour" up you know where.

Re:Fact: Fingerprints are more reliable than DNA

[CanHasDIY]

Yes, believe it or not, fingerprints are far more reliable than DNA.

Not true, thanks to a little thing called confirmation bias

not even real DNA comparisons

[frovingslosh]

"The police are getting lazy" is a gross understatement. When they "compare" DNA samples, they don't sequence each sample and do a complete match on the resulting sequences. Rather they do a crude comparison with techniques like gel electrophoresis and say "we think they match". While such a test might be good enough to rule out a non-match, it would be like saying "the shadow of the suspect (or at least a shadow we saw somewhere nearby) looks something like yours, so we are declaring you guilty".

Re:I Guess This Is What Happens When I Don't Watch

[SomePgmr]

They do the forensics, write the report, and the report goes off to the detectives.

And they do it quite well considering they apparently work in the dark, but never spill any of those lab chemicals on their $700 pants. Consummate professionals, indeed!

Re:I Guess This Is What Happens When I Don't Watch

[MachineShedFred]

I guess I'm wondering why they are down on DNA matching, when it did exactly what it's supposed to. This was a failure to either interpret the results of the test, as you suggest; or a failure to interpret the trace evidence that called for the DNA match to begin with.

Re:I Guess This Is What Happens When I Don't Watch

[Anonymous Coward]

This all happened in Kipling, Saskatchewan, which is also the home of the world's largest red paperclip. Busy place!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_red_paperclip

Re:Fact: Fingerprints are more reliable than DNA

[Hatta]

Yes, believe it or not, fingerprints are far more reliable than DNA.

Except that no one has actually done the population level research needed in order to prove that fingerprints are unique, and two different finger print analysts are very likely to come up with different analyses of the same print.

There has not been a known case of two people having the same fingerprint

Which is irrelevant if different fingerprint analysts cannot reliably score the same fingerprints the same way.

Re:I Guess This Is What Happens When I Don't Watch

[Anonymous Coward]

Not me. Put me on a jury and someone on the prosecution says DNA evidence, expect me to roll my eyes and even say oh sci-fi out loud.

Re:I Guess This Is What Happens When I Don't Watch

[gewalker]

And this is why if you have been seated for a jury in recent history you very likely were briefed that real-life is not like Hollywood. The cops do not always collect finger print , DNA, or video evidence of the crime. And that you should not acquit using "reasonable doubt" just because these "iron-clad" evidences are missing -- They are not "iron-clad" when present and not evidence of "innocence" when missing.

Re:I Guess This Is What Happens When I Don't Watch

[Anonymous Coward]

Not to mention the constantly exploding glass walls. You would think they would have considered more shatterproof alternatives by now, they replace those things at least once every year.

Re:I Guess This Is What Happens When I Don't Watch

[camperdave]

Yeah. Why do they always investigate with flashlights? Make note of whether the light was on or off, then turn on the frelling lights so you can see.

Re:I Guess This Is What Happens When I Don't Watch

[camperdave]

...including one case of a doctor who actually managed to hide another person's blood in one of his veins, thus faking his innocence.

Sounds like one of the Founders/Changelings from Star Trek: Deep Space 9, back when they were infiltrating the Federation.

Re:I Guess This Is What Happens When I Don't Watch

[camperdave]

There have been a number of episodes where they show DNA evidence as fallible. I recall one episode where the suspect was a chimera ( two eggs fertilized by two separate sperm that normally would have developed into fraternal twins, but somehow they merged into a single embryo, and thus into a single person). The suspect knew he had two sets of DNA, and used that knowledge to spoof the tests.

There was another episode where they had searched for fingerprints on a matchbook (using a dye that would attach to the DNA fragments in the oils) and they didn't find anything. So they were in court with the wrong suspect. Turns out that by the time the case had come to trial, the oils had broken down and they now revealed a fingerprint that wasn't there during the initial analysis. They had to throw out the case.

Re:I Guess This Is What Happens When I Don't Watch

[Anonymous Coward]

There was also an episode where somebody had collected cigarette butts from an ash tray and had placed one or two at a crime scene, thus directing the investigation away from himself.

The MythBusters need to do a show on DNA

[Joe_Dragon]

The MythBusters need to do a show on DNA

For profit prisons dont give a damn.

[Anonymous Coward]

Lock up people by the millions. We have the unlimited ability to tax anything to pay for it. And as long as we do were going to put it up you ass all we like.

DNA evidence as dumbed down for a grand jury

[DavidHumus]

When I was on grand jury duty, we had a few cases involving DNA evidence. Each time, the crime lab tech would repeat the same well-rehearsed statement that the odds against finding a match by chance would require something like "100 trillion earths with a population of 10 billion individuals" to find someone with a particular DNA sequence.

I regret not using my prerogative as a grand juror to ask them if the chances of contamination or a lab error were less than that number.

Re:DNA evidence as dumbed down for a grand jury

[gr8_phk]

Again, let's suppose that there are 1 million possible DNA profiles (they are not a complete sequence remember). So 2 random samples would have about a 1 in one trillion (with a T) chance of matching. However, if you take a single sample and compare it to a database of 10 million samples you will almost certainly get a match - probably more than one.

Re:I Guess This Is What Happens When I Don't Watch

[Yvanhoe]

Is horrible American television that prevalent?

Actually, yes. CSI, 24 are popular here (France) even to the point where judges and policemen complain about people knowing more about how the law works in America than in France.

Juries easy to sway

[Sentrion]

Let's face it, our educational standards have dropped to such a low point that most juries in America can be swayed by any motivated and well funded prosecutor. There's enough DNA evidence to convince the average jury that I am in fact a Chimpanzee, just by showing them that I share 96% of chimp DNA. Prosecutors are quick to point out the difference between "shadow of a doubt" and "reasonable doubt" - 96% DNA clearly removes any 'reasonable' doubt that I am not a chimp. People have been executed in this country within the last decade with even flimsier evidence.

Most murder suspects have to pay their life's savings and rack up additional years of debt to cover legal expenses while simultaneously losing earning opportunities, usually resulting in bankruptcy even if they are acquitted. Even when they hire an attorney they usually don't have the funds to put up an equivalent defense compared to state budgets. The cost of legal defense can devastate an entire extended family. When Brian Banks was falsely accused of rape his mother sold her house, car and went into debt to cover his legal expenses. He is an NFL hopeful with a goal to make enough money to pay back his mother. Not every falsely accused will have such an opportunity.

Having a public defender appointed to represent you just means you get an under-paid, unmotivated lawyer that just wants to wrap up the case quickly with an admission of guilt or a plea agreement. But the state can spend $10 million on just one case in the name of being "tough on crime". Prosecutors have to win almost every case that goes to trial or force the accused to accept archaic plea deals. If they let suspects walk on lack of evidence it becomes front page news, and it damages their future prospects, especially if they seek election to a public office. The emergence of the Prison-Industrial Complex is one of the greatest present-day threats to our democracy and individual freedoms. Pray it doesn't happen to you.

Re:Juries easy to sway

[ub3r n3u7r4l1st]

Prosecutors want to be known for being "tough on crime" because these will help their political career. Rudy Guliani, Eliot Spitzer, to name a few.

I am waiting for the neo-nazi AC troll to defend the well known racist criminal justice system of the USA, who thinks nobody deserves basic health care and should die if you get sick.

Over-reliance works in favour of the criminals.

[Havenwar]

There was a guy here in Sweden who is in jail for rape. He recently got convicted for the further crime of smuggling sperm out with his son who was then supposed to rape a woman, leave the sperm sample there, and thus throw some doubt into the validity of the conviction of his father.

(In a finger cut off a latex glove, if I recall correctly, since I know you're all very curious.)

The problem with cases like this is that they make things like that possible. If DNA is all you need, then it doesn't really take much... a few shakes, scratch your head... hell, they grab DNA off the saliva on cigarette butts. With the advances in the technology, soon enough you'll cough on the bus and a week later get arrested for the crimes committed by some guy who sat down in the same seat 20 minutes later.

There's really only one thing we need to solve this, and amusingly it is also needed to solve another major issue with the legal system... We need a legal system, and specifically judges, that are familiar with both technology and science. Well familiar. I mean, you could even argue that the judge should BE a scientist... setting up a null hypothesis before the trial, and doing careful testing to either validate or disprove the hypothesis.

Maybe that would cut down on the amount of "patent suits" judged on by people who have no idea what a mouse pointer is.

Everett Ruess revisited?

[Anonymous Coward]

I thought the botched DNA identification of Everett Ruess a few years back settled this once and for all.

In brief: David Roberts and National Geographic Adventure Magazine completely demolished DNA experts and DNA evidence...

Was nobody paying any attention?

Re:I Guess This Is What Happens When I Don't Watch

[turkeydance]

also, lack of DNA evidence doesn't exonerate.

Post Title

[wesk]

If the author suggests "how did it get there?" is the more appropriate question, then why did he use the title "The case against DNA"? It suggests DNA cannot reliably be tied to an individual.

Re:I Guess This Is What Happens When I Don't Watch

[Ossifer]

While in Saskatchewan, don't forget to see the "Pile of Bones"...

The actual problem

[sjames]

The problem isn't DNA per se, it's police jumping at the first hint of a connection and assUme-ing causality where none is actually suggested. OK fine, you found joe-schmoe's DNA on someone. That means at MOST that Joe Schmoe was in contact with the victim at some point in fairly recent history. Perhaps he bumped in to him on the sidewalk going to lunch. It could mean a lot less, for example they both checked their coats at the same restaurant at lunch and never saw each other at all. All of that and it remains entirely possible that Joe is telling the truth when he claims to not remember the victim at all. In the latter case, he COULDN'T remember him.

It is one more clue amongst many that might lead to a criminal, but that's it. It is not some sort of end all and be all.

So you found Joe's DNA on the hammer that killed the victim. You now know that either Joe touched the hammer in the last few days OR that someone who was in contact with Joe touched the hammer in the last few days. That's hardly damning, you'll need a lot more to put the hammer in Joe's hand as it struck the victim's head.

All of that is before we even consider chance matches, cross-contamination, or lab error.

Conclusion: Prosecutors will really want to strike me from the jury. They don't want to deal with actually proving the case, they just want to put someone (anyone) in jail.

Re:I Guess This Is What Happens When I Don't Watch

[sjames]

It's kinda sad really. It's just fiction and certainly they exaggerate the prevalence of DNA (for one thing, the near instant analysis), but they still generally insist on having a stronger case against the defendant than the real police do. Especially the way they also willingly look at exculpatory evidence rather than trying to shove it under the rug where the defense won't find it.

Re:I Guess This Is What Happens When I Don't Watch

[Ossifer]

Why is an unrealistic American television show being referenced about a case in Liverpool by a UK news source?

Shouldn't you pose such a question to The Telegraph rather than here?

And who cares if a television show makes the public think DNA evidence is incontestable?

Excuse my American ignorance, but aren't juries used in British criminal court cases?

Re:I Guess This Is What Happens When I Don't Watch

[AmiMoJo]

The problem is they get away with it. Look at Barry George, convicted based on flawed forensic evidence consisting of a single spec of gunpowder that might not actually have been gunpowder or even from his clothes. Sometimes, as in that case, the truth comes to light and the error is corrected, but often it doesn't.

There is no sanction against the police or the forensic services or expert witnesses for these mistakes or outright fabrications. Under pressure to deliver results and apparently unwilling to properly investigate they love DNA evidence.

Mod parent troll

[fiannaFailMan]

British shows don't travel across the Atlantic so well, so their comedy often has to be translated into an American version where the jokes are spelled out more explicitly to fit with American humour.

You sound like an American tv producer, not an American. Me and most of my friends prefer Britcoms to Sitcoms; example, the Office. British version far superior in every way. So stick your "American humour" up you know where.

Er, I'm not an American. I'm not British either. What has my nationality got to do with the price of fish anyway? I don't care what you and your intimate circle of friends think. I'm well aware that there is a certain market for Brit TV in America, I didn't say there wasn't. I simply said that if a British TV show wants to make it big in America then it has to get translated into the more explicit American humour.

So stick your assumptions up you know where.

Contamination

[MichaelSmith]

Brings to mind the Leskie DNA incident. The funny thing was that for months after the rape victim's DNA had been found on the murdered child's clothing, police and forensic investigators flatly denied that it could have been caused by contamination.

Re:I Guess This Is What Happens When I Don't Watch

[Anonymous Coward]

That's why I like Murdoch Mysteries. Takes place in the 1800's and there's none of that DNA or infinite-resolution camera bullshit. The guy actually has to do some legwork.

Re:I Guess This Is What Happens When I Don't Watch

[gr8_phk]

Okay, congratulations, that has to be the most jaw dropping thing I've read in quite sometime about justice in the UK. Are you serious? DNA should be used as one piece of a very large puzzle used to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that this person was present at some point in time.

Yep. DNA is supposed to be used to check if an existing suspect was at the scene of the crime. In that case it's a very good indicator. If however, you take some DNA from the scene and compare it to everyone in a database you'll almost certainly find a match - which doesn't mean much. It's damning if you use it to put someone with reasonable suspicion at the scene. It can be tragic to use it to start the search with no other evidence.

Hair

[Anonymous Coward]

What happens if someone gathers hair from a barber shop and leaves it at a crime scene?

Re:I Guess This Is What Happens When I Don't Watch

[IAmR007]

Indeed, and it's not exactly hard for someone to do the opposite and significantly reduce their own dna output if they were trying to frame someone. The semiconductor industry has been improving techniques to keep the rate of human contamination from technicians/researchers down in their clean rooms for decades, and a couple orders of magnitude difference is considered basic.

Only our lowest courts use juries. Panels of experts (multiple judges) has generally worked quite well in higher courts. Stuff like this and the Apple vs Samsung case make me wonder how great of an idea trial by jury really is. Sure, it's better than trial by fire or combat, but we have a representative democracy precisely because the average person lacks the time and/or training to comprehend the framework they are trying to make decisions from. There are so many things wrong with our criminal justice system.

Re:I Guess This Is What Happens When I Don't Watch

[Anonymous Coward]

with the same DNA profile

You raise a good point that no other commenter has. DNA evidence isn't actually about DNA... but instead its concerning a DNA profile. The DNA evidence collected during investigation is never genomically mapped, but rather a simplified profile is generated. There have been at least a few documented cases of unrelated people having matching DNA profiles.

Re:I Guess This Is What Happens When I Don't Watch

[Anonymous Coward]

Thanks to fast-paced television crime shows such as CSI: Crime Scene Investigation, we have come to regard DNA evidence as uncontestable.

Why is an unrealistic American television show being referenced about a case in Liverpool by a UK news source? Is horrible American television that prevalent? I'm not seeing The Mighty Boosh referenced in The New York Times in regards to the legalization of marijuana. And who cares if a television show makes the public think DNA evidence is incontestable? That xenophobic vapid televisions series 24 appears to be proof positive justification for torture and Judge Dread style murder but that should not alter the way our courts rule.

The prosecution in Liverpool Crown Court has no other proof that ties Butler to the murder — showing just how much store they place in the science.

Okay, congratulations, that has to be the most jaw dropping thing I've read in quite sometime about justice in the UK. Are you serious? DNA should be used as one piece of a very large puzzle used to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that this person was present at some point in time. It is a flawed process and should be used as one piece of many pieces of evidence against someone. If you put that much weight on it, framing someone just became a one step process. Hopefully it will improve but just as hopefully it will always remain as one supporting piece of evidence requiring many other avenues of evidence before a conviction.

CSI is referenced because of the science as superstition nature of the show.

Re:I Guess This Is What Happens When I Don't Watch

[dargaud]

Which is why drug tests for athletes are incredibly intrusive: someone is watching them pee. I I don't mean watching them sit on the loo or turn their back, no, they have to stand one meter or so away and watch the graphic details the whole time. Because there's been several stories of cyclists putting a condom with somebody else's urine in their ass (!!!) and using a tube to get it out at the right time. No shit, drugs will make you do the crasiest shit.

Re:I Guess This Is What Happens When I Don't Watch

[Hognoxious]

It doesn't claim to be even remotely factual.

And CSI does?

Clearly you only think in simple yes/no black/with terms, but differences of degree can be significant. CSI shows live actors, the characters are humans rather than supernatural entities or space aliens, they do a job we've heard of and it's set in a real city. The other has a guy jamming with the drummer from Santana when a door opens in his head which enable him to defeat a monster made of video tape.

Which requires the greatest suspension of disbelief? I'd say the one with the sentient gorilla and the wizard.

You fail to see the difference between made up and bloody obviously made up. That, in fact, is the gist of the article - that the public (who are the raw material for juries) don't either.

ITALIAN POLICE

[Anonymous Coward]

Were particularly trigger happy in using tha DNA from a suspect in the infamous Perugia case as final evidence of murder COMPLETELY IGNORING the fact that the PERSONS WERE LIVING TOGHETER so it was obvious that large amounts of DNA would intermingle.

Which is why I never donate used clothing

[WOOFYGOOFY]

Which is exactly why I never donate used clothing or shoes to Goodwill. So what if they wash them? Prove to me that no DNA survives the washing process. DNA survives a lot of stuff- giving rise to certain techniques in paleo-anthropology. In fact , that wash probably only hurts your chances at a defense, the same way having your password hacked on your wireless hurts you more in your illegal download defense than if you had left your WIFI open to anyone.

Prosecutor: the defendant claims that her DNA was found at the crime scene as a result of donating clothes to your Goodwill store. Do you wash all the clothes before you sell them, Mr. Proprietor?

Mr. Proprietor: Yes sir, every item is thoroughly washed before it's put up for sale. Prosecutor: No further questions your honor.

tick tick tick ..

Jury GILLLLLL TEEEE!!!!! on all charges!!!!!!

Re:Frontline SPECIAL

[AssholeMcGee]

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/real-csi/ The episode call "The Real CSI", wanted to post it among the top rated comments hopefully people will pass it around, and get a look at how a set of new standards that SHOULD be in place for all DNA/physical evidence. I also view these episodes with an open mind realizing that some of the statements and or reporting is a little over zealous.

Re:I Guess This Is What Happens When I Don't Watch

[Hognoxious]

When you're not listening to Rush Limbaugh or driving 200 yards to buy a sack of chips and a gallon of HFCS laden soda, perhaps you could learn the difference between an example and an exhaustive list.

To choose a subject you're no doubt familiar with, imagine I was writing (for a global audience) about obesity and I put "fast food chains such as Quick". 98% of readers would go "who?"

Re:I Guess This Is What Happens When I Don't Watch

[Hognoxious]

You must be one of those elites who like spicy mustard and microbrews instead of ketchup and Bud like proper good 'ol boy 'merkuns.

Re:The Truth About DNA

[Hognoxious]

Hate to break it to you, but that's his mom.

DNA / Forensics / The Law / Police

[NSN A392-99-964-5927]

I really do feel for this person who was held on remand as things like this can be life shattering, not only being held as a prisoner, but also for your family members but your reputation and employment prospects are severely affected.

Any financial compensation does not help at all as you will always be "Known as that person who". Hopefully another Slashdot member could take up another angle on this.

Cross contamination occurs all the time and law enforcement agencies and the police are only interested in a conviction as it helps their careers like people who work in sales and marketing and get paid commission on results. Motivation is for all the wrong reasons.

Before entering a crime scene a person needs to be decontaminated as in a "Clean Room" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cleanroom and there are mobile decontamination units https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_decontamination as you are running the risk of getting something seriously wrong even if someone sneezes and the wind direction is wrong ;-)

 

Re:I Guess This Is What Happens When I Don't Watch

[nedlohs]

And yet you don't know what the word "most" means?

Re:I Guess This Is What Happens When I Don't Watch

[robsku]

Thanks to fast-paced television crime shows such as CSI: Crime Scene Investigation, we have come to regard DNA evidence as uncontestable.

Why is an unrealistic American television show being referenced about a case in Liverpool by a UK news source? Is horrible American television that prevalent? I'm not seeing The Mighty Boosh referenced in The New York Times in regards to the legalization of marijuana. And who cares if a television show makes the public think DNA evidence is incontestable? That xenophobic vapid televisions series 24 appears to be proof positive justification for torture and Judge Dread style murder but that should not alter the way our courts rule.

"should not" being the key words here - it's quite obvious that the writer believing that this (TV affecting how people are judged) is happening believes it "should not" either. Is he/she right is another matter entirely, but as far as "should or should not" goes, you're agreeing with him/her.