Re:Accused murderer wins right to check source code of DNA t...
by JoeAltmaier on Monday February 08, 2021 @03:40PM
(#26069804)
Yes there is a need for controls and independent certification.
Re:Accused murderer wins right to check source code of DNA t...
by tsimionescu on Monday February 08, 2021 @03:47PM
(#26069890)
There is also a need to recognize that a lot of this science just doesn't work (to the extent that it is often presented). The right way to phrase a lot of the conclusions of these experts, at the state of the art, would be 'in my expert opinion, it looks like it might be their DNA/fingerprint/hair/teeth', not 'in my expert opinion it is [...]'. Because even the state of the art is often about at that level - probably closer to 75% accuracy than 99.99% like it's often treated. Especially on real world, partial, corrupted samples.
And to emphasize again, I'm talking about the state of the art without the biases being discussed. The biases only compound this problem significantly.
A lot of forensic science in itself is essentially phrenology (tooth prints, hair analysis - the non DNA kind, even fingerprinting is of exaggerated value). A lot of labs systematically turn out biased results with generally no expectation of risk, either personally to researchers and definitely not to higher ups.
Ultimately, forensic evidence should be seen as a signal, but not nearly as trustworthy as witness testimony (which in itself is not very trustworthy), despite what many believe.
And this is important for the general public to understand, the people who will participate in juries. The mystique that forensic experts have can make juries give extremely wrong decisions (even bad aquitalls on lack of forensic evidence).