←back to thread

248 points punnerud | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.227s | source
Show context
h1fra ◴[] No.43397159[source]
I have always wondered why DNA is an accepted evidence. It's so easy to contaminate a crime scene or bring someone else hair, skin cells, etc by mistake.
replies(4): >>43397344 #>>43398201 #>>43398743 #>>43408056 #
rwmj ◴[] No.43397344[source]
In theory, you could do a "perfect crime" by going to a seedy part of town, picking up a dropped cigarette butt, and leaving it at the crime scene, framing someone else.

In reality, criminals are angry, frightened, in a rush, high or stupid, and they make the most elementary mistakes, so DNA and fingerprints work just fine almost all the time. In like 99% of cases there's not much doubt about who did it, the main thing is to have a watertight case against them when they deny it.

replies(4): >>43398229 #>>43399611 #>>43401127 #>>43402747 #
serf ◴[] No.43398229[source]
>so DNA and fingerprints work just fine almost all the time.

except for all of those innocent folks that have had their lives ruined by that 'almost all the time' caveat, it's great!

here's a report[0] that says something like 80% + of criminal forensic work has major mistakes within it.

[0]: https://www.criminallegalnews.org/news/2024/may/15/report-fi...

replies(2): >>43398722 #>>43417510 #
1. Genbox ◴[] No.43417510[source]
A few years ago i picked up the old (but famous) cases of Brad Cooper and Casey Anthony as they have tons of available digital forensics evidence.

I double-checked the forensics work and found several mistakes in processes, assumptions and technical conclusions. I sent off my findings to people associated with Project Innocence - not because I found anything that proved Cooper or Anthony's innocence, quite the opposite. Instead, I wanted to let them know that forensics experts can make mistakes.

It is interesting that scientific work have fault-finding processes like peer-reviews, but forensics investigations in court cases does not.