The sins of the son... (N/A)

wbarnhill

wbarnhill

Final Approach
Joined
Feb 26, 2005
Messages
7,901
Location
Greenwood, SC
Display Name
Display name:
iEXTERMINATE
wbarnhill said:
DNA from a prisoner linked someone in his family to a string of unsolved murders in California. The LAPD then mapped out his family tree and focused on his father. They investigated and eventually obtained a discarded slice of pizza which they tested and confirmed the match to the DNA on file for the murders. Amazing stuff.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way...pd-to-alleged-grim-sleeper-killer?sc=fb&cc=fp
Click to expand...

Hmmm... mixed feelings on this one.

I wonder if experts in DNA analysis (outside of law enforcement) believe the technology is sufficiently accurate to be used in this way. My understanding is that most experts consider DNA more useful to exonerate than to convict.

On the other hand, if the technology has reached that level of precision and is applied fairly by honest scientists and technicians, it could be very useful. There are always the possibilities of corruption, incompetence, and sloppiness on the parts of the labs, however; so some strong mechanisms for accountability are vital.

-Rich
 
RJM62 said:
Hmmm... mixed feelings on this one.

I wonder if experts in DNA analysis (outside of law enforcement) believe the technology is sufficiently accurate to be used in this way. My understanding is that most experts consider DNA more useful to exonerate than to convict.

On the other hand, if the technology has reached that level of precision and is applied fairly by honest scientists and technicians, it could be very useful. There are always the possibilities of corruption, incompetence, and sloppiness on the parts of the labs, however; so some strong mechanisms for accountability are vital.

-Rich
Click to expand...

That is indeed a fine point, and I don't think a case should be completely hinged on a single point such as DNA, but at the same time, I don't see the harm in using a familial search to narrow down a field of potential suspects; especially in a case such as a list of unsolved murders.
 
It is my uneducated belief that some states specifically exclude this method of finding suspects. In other words, if they find a near match when trying to do a DNA match for a crime, they cannot use that as a reason to suspect family members in the crime.

I have mixed feelings on this as well.
 
If they were investigating a suspect and found a joint checking account with a relative that contained several hundred thousand dollars, would it be legitimate to investigate the other person on the account?
 
The technology is amazing - just the rubbed off cells from your lips on gooey pizza can be recovered, amplified, and tested for DNA pattern!!! - this is science fiction stuff...

Now, how we use it has to be carefully controlled by the courts... A DNA match without any other corroborating evidence, and especially if the accused has an alibi that stands up, should not enough for a criminal conviction - which requires 'beyond a shadow of a doubt' by the jury...
Remember, DNA match is not "proof", it is that the odds are millions to one against the MATCH being a coincidence - even at hundreds of millions to one odds we have power ball winners (a "conviction')...
Without reading the court record on this case I have to believe that besides the DNA match they had corroborating circumstantial evidence to support a conviction...

denny-o
 
Dr. O said:
The technology is amazing - just the rubbed off cells from your lips on gooey pizza can be recovered, amplified, and tested for DNA pattern!!! - this is science fiction stuff...

Now, how we use it has to be carefully controlled by the courts... A DNA match without any other corroborating evidence, and especially if the accused has an alibi that stands up, should not enough for a criminal conviction - which requires 'beyond a shadow of a doubt' by the jury...
Remember, DNA match is not "proof", it is that the odds are millions to one against the MATCH being a coincidence - even at hundreds of millions to one odds we have power ball winners (a "conviction')...
Without reading the court record on this case I have to believe that besides the DNA match they had corroborating circumstantial evidence to support a conviction...

denny-o
Click to expand...

The guy hasn't been convicted yet. Only arrested. I should reiterate that. I agree that there should be other corroborating evidence. In my eyes the DNA should only be used to narrow the field of potential suspects, not to convict for a crime.
 
Dr. O said:
The technology is amazing - just the rubbed off cells from your lips on gooey pizza can be recovered, amplified, and tested for DNA pattern!!! - this is science fiction stuff...

Now, how we use it has to be carefully controlled by the courts... A DNA match without any other corroborating evidence, and especially if the accused has an alibi that stands up, should not enough for a criminal conviction - which requires 'beyond a shadow of a doubt' by the jury...
Remember, DNA match is not "proof", it is that the odds are millions to one against the MATCH being a coincidence - even at hundreds of millions to one odds we have power ball winners (a "conviction')...
Without reading the court record on this case I have to believe that besides the DNA match they had corroborating circumstantial evidence to support a conviction...

denny-o
Click to expand...

nit: I thought the yardstick is "reasonable doubt"
 
wabower said:
If they were investigating a suspect and found a joint checking account with a relative that contained several hundred thousand dollars, would it be legitimate to investigate the other person on the account?
Click to expand...

Sure. But the existence of hundreds of thousands of dollars in an account is a certainty. DNA really isn't, to my understanding. A DNA "match" is merely a statement of probability, which may be quite high, but is never absolute (given the current state of the art as I understand it).

Another factor to consider is that within certain ethnic minority groups, the probabilities of a false "match" are many times higher than in those of European ancestry, due (I believe) to more homogeneity, and therefore less genetic diversity, within those groups.

So again, I have mixed feelings. Any technology that can increase the probability of a correct outcome is useful, but its usefulness has to be weighed against the potential for error or abuse. And I agree will Bill that cases should not be prosecuted solely on DNA evidence. There needs to be some other evidence, even if it's circumstantial.

-Rich
 
wbarnhill said:
DNA from a prisoner linked someone in his family to a string of unsolved murders in California. The LAPD then mapped out his family tree and focused on his father. They investigated and eventually obtained a discarded slice of pizza which they tested and confirmed the match to the DNA on file for the murders. Amazing stuff.
Click to expand...

I'd say here is the most likely suspect...:goofy:

pizzahut.jpg

Pizza The Hut!
 
i can't believe there are people out there who would leave a piece of pizza uneaten.
 
tonycondon said:
i can't believe there are people out there who would leave a piece of pizza uneaten.
Click to expand...

High School cafe pizza.

Of course, there are people who will (reasonably) argue that
"High School cafe pizza" is a contradiction.
 
i used to like the lunchroom pizza. in fact i think its safe to say ive never met a slice of pizza that i didnt like.
 
wabower said:
If they were investigating a suspect and found a joint checking account with a relative that contained several hundred thousand dollars, would it be legitimate to investigate the other person on the account?
Click to expand...

Very different situatiion the mere presence of the money means nothing in and of itself. You can't investigate someone just because they have a lot of money in the DNA case there is at least a familial DNA match to other evidence.

wbarnhill said:
The guy hasn't been convicted yet. Only arrested. I should reiterate that. I agree that there should be other corroborating evidence. In my eyes the DNA should only be used to narrow the field of potential suspects, not to convict for a crime.
Click to expand...

Ah and there in lies the problem. This is exciting scientific and forensic news that has been broadcast to the nation. As far as i know they do not yet have a direct DNA match but my guess is that now 90% of the folks that saw the news piece are thinking Hey cool they caught the guy. Regarless of the burden of proof in the trial this guy now has a mighty burden to undo the pre-judgment if you will. Anyone remember the security guard accused by the Authorities of the Alanta Olympics bombing?
 
AdamZ said:
...

Ah and there in lies the problem. This is exciting scientific and forensic news that has been broadcast to the nation. As far as i know they do not yet have a direct DNA match but my guess is that now 90% of the folks that saw the news piece are thinking Hey cool they caught the guy. Regarless of the burden of proof in the trial this guy now has a mighty burden to undo the pre-judgment if you will. Anyone remember the security guard accused by the Authorities of the Alanta Olympics bombing?
Click to expand...

+1

I've found myself highly conflicted as to the appropriateness of the "prosecutorial team" being allowed to discuss a case - no matter what it involves - in public prior to the commencement of trial and the empanelling of a jury.

I've got no problem with the news discussing what is public record, but I've got to question the fairness of a prosecutor saying "we've got the guy" and thereby preemptively influencing the jury pool.

There are certainly competing interests there, but when weighing them all against each other, I think I come down on the side of fairness to the defendant.

My conclusion is based in no small part on what the shared experiences of Richard Jewell and those guys at Duke - and unknown numbers of others, some perhaps in prison right now - tell us.
 
To those familiar with computers, DNA profiling is a hash function. Unfortunately, it's a smallish hash function. With more and more people being thrown into the DNA profiled bucket, there are more and more collisions in that hash showing up.

That's why DNA is more of an exonerating tool and not a conviction tool (without corroborating evidence).

--Carlos V.
 
AuntPeggy said:
It is my uneducated belief that some states specifically exclude this method of finding suspects. In other words, if they find a near match when trying to do a DNA match for a crime, they cannot use that as a reason to suspect family members in the crime.

I have mixed feelings on this as well.
Click to expand...

But in the case of the father, they got an exact match.
 
tonycondon said:
i can't believe there are people out there who would leave a piece of pizza uneaten.
Click to expand...
That in itself is criminal... once you begin eating even a lousy slice of pizza, you are committed. Crust-leavers give me the willies...
 
DNA evidence is breathtaking in its sophistication. Small traces of DNA can be amplified using the Polymerase chain reaction, or PCR. The amazing thing about the genome, or the total DNA content of our cells, is its full of repeated sequences. Indeed, these comprise roughly half the genome.

Many of these repeats are actually quite small, and go by the name of microsatellite sequences. They can be different in length from person to person, such that I might have microstaellite sequences the same length some as my brother, but I am less likely to have similar ones to those of an unrelated stranger.

Half my mirosattelite sequences came from my mother, half from my father. There are tens of thousands, but the odds of some sort of relationship become astronomical if we share even a handful. Thus DNA evidence can be used to show familial relationships very accurately.

The one problem with DNA evidence is it must be handled very carefully, to prevent contamination with the DNA of the police officer, the evidence clerk, or even the forensic geneticist performing the analysis. We all have copies of our genome in each of our cells and we shed thousands of skin cells every minute.

In addition, the process has to be protected from misuse. Contamination of the evidence with the victim's own DNA will result in a positive identification. This was a problem in the OJ Simpson murder trial, when the defense was able to successfully disparage one of the LA police officers. There have been problems related to control issues in a number of prominent forensic genetics labs, including the FBI's own facility in DC. Because of the latter issues DNA has historically been more forceful in proving innocence than guilt.
 
steingar said:
The one problem with DNA evidence is it must be handled very carefully, to prevent contamination with the DNA of the police officer, the evidence clerk, or even the forensic geneticist performing the analysis.
Click to expand...
Or the cook at the pizzeria..... Sanitation may be questionable at the pizzeria.

-Skip
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top