Why You Cannot Trust DNA

[QuickHitCurepon]

The following article from Oct 1989 pinpoints when DNA testing began, and shows how the myth about its infallibility began immediately, when DNA was new.

Murder Trial Offers DNA Test - NYTimes.com

The potential for identifying a suspect with DNA testing is extremely high, said Lieut. Scott Wanlass...The probability of more than one individual's having the same combination of DNA patterns is astronomically small, he said. ...

The procedure has been used in at least 80 cases of murder and rape in 27 states. ...

In a recent double-murder case in the Bronx...Joseph Castro was accused of murdering a pregnant neighbor and her infant daughter. Scientists...testified that blood stains found on Mr. Castro's wristwatch had been subjected to DNA testing and that these tests showed that the blood was that of the slain mother. The scientists said that the odds that this was only a coincidence were one in 100 million. ...

Jurors said that DNA evidence used in the trial was believable, but not pivotal to their decision, because Mr. Huang admitted during the trial that he was in the restaurant the night Mr. Kao was killed.

According to Assistant District Attorney Kenneth Littman, who prosecuted the case, the most significant part of the DNA evidence was that it dictated the trial strategy.

''It forced the defendant to adopt an absurd defense as to why he was in the restaurant in the middle of the night wearing a ski mask,'' Mr. Littman said. ''He had no choice but to admit he was there; the DNA evidence prevented him from saying, 'It wasn't me.' ''...

This approach is fine, when the suspect is really guilty but not when the police often nab the wrong man or woman.

When police get a positive result of DNA on crime scene evidence, they have conditioned us to believe the reliability of the evidence is now astronomically accurate.

DNA key in murder trial - greatfallstribune.com

DNA key in murder trial
By Jared Miller
Jan 24, 2004

John Stanley Jones, a 36-year-old Great Falls native, is accused of raping and killing 70-year-old Gisela Morris in her apartment at Eagles Manor in December 2002. An autopsy showed that Morris died of deep stab wounds to the neck and pressure injuries to her throat. ...

Deputy Fergus County Attorney Monte Boettger...in his opening remarks...told jurors that DNA from a bloody pillow found beside the victim's brutalized, half-naked body was consistent with Jones' DNA.

Boettger alleged that blood from a cut on Jones' hand soaked into the pillow as he used it to subdue Morris during the rape and murder.

The chance the DNA was not deposited by Jones is one in 1.7 billion, Boettger said. ...

There are fundamental questions that are rarely if ever discussed frankly in our mainstream media, and this following quote from Nov 2003 sums it up quite well:

DNA and The Peterson Murder Trial

In any criminal trial in which DNA evidence is presented, one side, usually the prosecutorial side, are those that believe in DNA as a crime-solving technique that is nearly error free. On the other side, which is usually the defense, are those who believe DNA evidence should be used only to prove someone's innocence, not their guilt.

They have their reasons. For one thing, they say, DNA must be handled with care because contamination can skew test results. For another, they say, the statistics that result from DNA testing are so phenomenally large that the very numbers could bias jurors.

In the OJ Simpson case, for example, some of the statistics that the prosecutors put out there were that only one in several billion people could have supplied the various blood splatters found by investigators on Simpson's property. The defense said that those numbers were ridiculous at times, more than the number of people alive at the time of the crime. If the jury were to hear those numbers without any query into the methodology, the defense said, we might as well throw out the presumption of innocence. Besides, if DNA samples are not handled with the utmost of care, the results are not trustworthy.

That is the real debate, whether it is the Peterson trial or the Simpson case. In America, if you are accused of a crime, you don't have to prove anything. You are presumed to be innocent. It is the prosecution that needs to prove their case before they lock you up and throw away the key.

And in the case of DNA, that deeply-held belief is not just splitting hairs.

The idea here is that improperly saying the prosecution's DNA evidence is incredibly exact is really all the proof many jurists would need to be convinced of someone's guilt, although almost no one would admit that. People naively trust in authority and is also how cult leaders gain power by cleverly linking their agenda with science or history. This forces anyone with legitamite questions to go along.

I don't agree with the part of the last quote that says DNA should not ever be used for convictions, but certainly I feel DNA evidence should at most carry no more weight than fingerprint evidence does.

In an Oct 2010 murder trial of Hakim Muhammad, the defense attorney tries to counter the myth of DNA. He has to at least try no matter how entrenched the myth is.

Chief Public Defender Steven Purvis referenced several news articles that supported that DNA can be fabricated and there were cases of misidentification through DNA evidence. ...

Purvis asked the judge not accept the DNA evidence as scientific certainty. ...[rockdalecitizen.com]

The odds against suspects accused of serious crimes are becoming more and more stacked against them each year, with a new prosecution tactic. DNA experts for the defense are being asked to prove a negative, which, of course, is impossible. So why on earth allow that at all, like in this Apr 2010 trial of Gary Dunn, who was accused of killing Nona Dirksmeyer?

DNA from a condom wrapper found at Nona Dirksmeyer's apartment was a match to Dunn's. ...

Lawrence Mueler, from the University of California told jurors DNA evidence on the condom wrapper is only a partial profile but could not exclude Dunn's DNA from the wrapper. ...[4029tv.com]

What is most alarming of all is how we often hear of many more cold cases being tried nowadays of murders from decades ago, and convictions occur almost solely on DNA evidence. That means that the DNA evidence from the suspect may have been examined possibly dozens of times over such a long period of time, and each handling of it brings the possibility of cross-contamination with a voluntary sample given by a suspect. Sooner or later over a very long period of time, if the evidence is handled enough times in a lab, the odds of cross-contamination may be as high as 50%, yet jurors will still be led to believe the DNA test is still almost infallible. The differences are as vast as the Grand Canyon.

A cold case more than 2 decades later, will most likely come down to DNA evidence. The man accused of murdering Kathy Sue Engle will wait to see if he'll stand trial. ...[ksbitv.com]

A man has been charged with capital murder after his DNA was linked to a 1978 murder in South Austin...[of] 66-year-old Hazel Ivy. ...

59-year-old Lester Ray Guy, who was originally questioned just days after the 1978 murder but denied involvement, has been arrested for the murder after his DNA matched semen found in Ivy’s post mortem examination. ...[weareaustin.com]

'83 slaying trial hinges on DNA / Prosecutors say chance of innocence is 1 in 11 quadrillion - SFGate

'83 slaying trial hinges on DNA / Prosecutors say chance of innocence is is 1 in 11 quadrillion
By Charlie Goodyear, Erin Hallisy
April 15, 2002

Until an arrest was made -- more than a decade after the crime -- the 1983 kidnap, rape and murder of 5-year-old Angela Bugay of Antioch looked unsolvable.

As jury selection begins today for the trial of Angela's accused killer, prosecutors are preparing to reveal a staggering piece of evidence. Thanks to years of quiet work in the nation's top DNA labs, jurors will hear that there is just a 1-in-11-quadrillion chance that Larry Christopher Graham, the man arrested in 1996 as a suspect in Angela's murder, is innocent.

Those are the highest odds ever presented in a California DNA trial, experts say, and they virtually eliminate the possibility that anyone other than Graham, 50, killed Angela.

It may not be easy at first for jurors to get their minds around the concept of a quadrillion -- a number with 15 zeros at the end, far more than the estimated number of people ever born on the planet.

"Even the average lawyer doesn't understand what a quadrillion is," said noted forensic scientist and DNA expert Edward Blake of Richmond, who has consulted on the case. Most importantly, he said, the tests show that semen and other DNA found on the girl's body is "a virtual unique genetic identification" of Graham.

Midland Daily News - Midland, MI

DNA results presented to jury in murder trial in Midland County Circuit Court
By Kelly Dame
Oct 2, 2010

DNA results from bloody clothes found in the apartment that was the scene of the December killing was among the last evidence presented in the trial of Cody Douglas Nelson before the people rested.

Nelson, 28, Midland, faces one count of open murder in the stabbing death of Megan Alexandra Walters, 22...

Michigan State Police forensic scientist, Jodi Corsi...collected bloody clothes from the crime scene...

Amber Smith, the state police forensic scientist who tested the DNA from the items Corsi collected, shared the results of the testing.

Blood on the jeans and socks belonged to Walters. DNA also was taken from the zipper, button and inside waistband of the jeans as well as the cuff of the sock in an attempt to identify who wore the items. That testing, Smith said, was positive for the DNA of both Nelson and Walters...

The odds of a random person having DNA matching Walters' is one time in 400 trillion people in the Caucasian population. The odds of finding a match to Nelson's blood in the same population is one time in 110 trillion. ...

Prosecution rests in Kansas murder trial | CJOnline.com

Prosecution rests in Kansas murder trial
In a murder trial of a Newton housewife, the prosecutor put her case to rest with talk of DNA evidence.

Forensics expert Mickey Steger testified there was a one in 5.5 billion chance the DNA found on a pair of sunglasses at the murder scene belonged to someone other than Chester L. Higgenbotham.

Higgenbotham, 34, is charged with first-degree murder in the killing of Rhonda Krehbiel, who was found beaten in her home May 20, 1994.

Harvey County Attorney Mary McDonald said Higgenbotham bound and gagged Krehbiel, 34, in her bedroom while her daughter, 6-year-old Kirsten, and a friend were put in a closet.

Higgenbotham's ex-wife, Vickie Brault testified Friday that he frequently wore sunglasses. She also identified two pairs introduced into evidence as similar to those Higgenbotham wore.

Also testifying for the state on Friday was Rick Lett, who said he worked as a baker with Higgenbotham at the Red Coach Inn in 1994.

He said Higgenbotham got into a disagreement with Krehbiel when she tried to pay the check after a meeting of her Christian women's group at the restaurant. ...

Closing arguments in 1985 rape-murder trial in San Francisco - SFGate

Closing arguments in 1985 rape-murder trial in San Francisco
By Jaxon Van Derbeken

Jurors heard closing arguments Thursday in a 22-year-old San Francisco murder case in which the only evidence against the defendant was DNA he allegedly left behind during the rape of the 28-year-old victim.

Prosecutor Claudia Phillips said the odds that someone other than the defendant, John Davis, committed the Dec. 4, 1985, burglary, rape and fatal stabbing of Barbara Martz were in the quadrillions-to-1 and quintillions-to-1, based on the rarity of his DNA pattern. A quadrillion is a 1 followed by 15 zeroes...

Beach murder trial starts; blood, hair focus | Jacksonville.com

Beach murder trial starts; blood, hair focus
By Paul Pinkham
Apr 14, 2005

Robert Erik Denney's hair and blood in his neighbor's Jacksonville Beach apartment are simple proof he killed her, a prosecutor argued Wednesday as Denney's first-degree murder trial...got under way. ...

"While it's true DNA does not lie, it only tells us a portion of the truth," said Assistant Public Defender Patrick McGuinness.

Corey Parker...was stabbed 101 times on Thanksgiving Day 1998. Her nude body was found, nearly unrecognizable, when she didn't show up for work the next day at Ragtime Tavern in Atlantic Beach. There was no evidence of sexual assault.

The crime went unsolved until 2000, when police matched a handful of hair samples and a smear of blood from her apartment to Denney, who was 17 and lived in an apartment that overlooked Parker's. ...

Assistant State Attorney Melissa Nelson said...a blood smear found in Parker's kitchen, matched to Denney, matches one in 17 quadrillion people -- more than three times the world's population...

McGuinness...said Jacksonville Beach police, inexperienced at preserving biological evidence, mislabeled blood samples from the apartment...

Youngstown News, 1985 murder trial shifts to the defense

1985 murder trial shifts to the defense
By Ed Runyan
Oct 18, 2008

Fingerprints on the victim’s television belonged to Bennie Adams.

YOUNGSTOWN — Prosecutors rested their case Friday in the Bennie Adams aggravated murder trial...

Brenda Girardi, a scientist with the Ohio Bureau of Criminal Identification and Investigation, said DNA from the body and underwear of Youngstown State University student Gina Tenney came from Adams. ...

Adams was Tenney's downstairs neighbor on Ohio Avenue. ...

Girardi said the chances that the DNA found in Tenney’s sex organs and in her underwear came from anyone except Adams is one in 38 trillion, or more than 1,000 times the population of the planet.

Adams was charged with receiving stolen property on Dec. 30, 1985, after police entered Adams’ apartment and found several items inside belonging to Tenney: her ATM card in Adams’ jacket, her television in a bedroom and her keys in a wastebasket. ...

DNA points to accused as father of Tashina's baby | Brantford Expositor

DNA points to accused as father of Tashina's baby
By Susan Gamble
Nov 2010

The baby Tashina General was carrying was almost certainly the child of the man accused of killing the Six Nations woman, a forensic expert testified Wednesday at Kent Owen Hill's murder trial.

DNA biologist Jonathan Millman from the Centre for Forensic Science in Toronto said that he supervised the work of a scientist who developed DNA profiles of fingernail clippings taken from Tashina General's body and of DNA from the 15-week old fetus she was carrying, from an envelope containing a letter that purported to be from Tashina and from the accused.

Millman described the findings in terms of probability, saying the odds of someone else's DNA besides Hill's being under Tashina's fingernails were one in 8.2 trillion.

The odds of Hill, 23, being the father of Tashina's baby were 180,000 times greater than that of someone else. ...

Court has heard that Hill confessed to police that he strangled Tashina General but he is pleading not guilty to the charges of second-degree murder. His offer to plead guilty to manslaughter has been rejected by the Crown.

Tashina, 21, went missing on Jan. 22, 2008. Her body was found April 25 of that year in a shallow grave behind Hill's family home on Six Nations. ...

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I didnt follow what made DNA unreliable? Cross contamination?

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

I didnt follow what made DNA unreliable? Cross contamination?

Overworked lab workers working for the police are near ready to drop with all the current crazy going-ons. They have been that way for as long as I can remember, jumping from one crisis to another. Yes, cross-contamination is what happens when the chain of evidence is predictably mixed up by human carelessness or oversight. They probably don't even know if the blood from a sample they're testing is ketchup or not sometimes.

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

It's religion to them. The vast majority of scientists are atheists, so we know their views of how DNA is applied contains all the mysteries and doubts that any religion would have.

Their testimony can't be questioned. So why don't you reinforce your submission right now. They win. Followers always lose.

The erudite have played the ignorant masses for thousands of years.

Therefore, crime labs have a prejudicial relationship with the police. No one but a scientist can interpret DNA so there can be no true peer review.

Cross contamination is a very easy mistake to make. When experts tell you there is a billion to one chance that the DNA evidence is wrong, they are lying through their teeth, which is no surprise, because the well-known habitually lying police work closely with the lab.

Fortunately, I have noticed that occasionally our government will employ the same methods cults do, as long as the techniques appear normal and the original intent is well hidden or invisible. With DNA testing, they haven't tried to hide the idea that we ONLY must believe in it with "faith." Nonetheless, it is the only time they'll do it, but that's all they need in order to gain complete control over whoever lives they want.

Eventually, almost any critical event involving humans could potentially be decided one way or another with a DNA test. The stakes are very high once there is no possibility of dissent simply because many decades have gone by without significant protest. Only a few decades have gone by since DNA testing started, but so far, there has not been ANY significant protest yet. I am doing what little I can here to change that.

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNA_profiling#Considerations_when_evaluating_DNA_evidence

But it's not just the problem with twins; it's also the common risk of cross-contamination and laboratory worker misinterpretation, willfulness, collusion or willingness to "stretch" the science to fit the desired results for the convenience of society. If there were fundamental flaws in the declaration of astronomic reliability for early DNA testing then the same fundamental disregard for potential mistakes and errors will also occur for "refined" methods. Since none of us laymen can understand what the improvements were or will be, we can only take the word of scientists as gospel, or that is what they expect us to do. Don't follow the cult leaders!

I heard recently about a guy who has two girl friends and one of them is pregnant. He may get sued for alimony. He's not sure, but he just wants to know if the child is his or not, so he's trying to scrape up money to get a DNA test done.

People's lives depend on this. That's why it is so vital that we question this, and nobody at all does so I finally decided to do it myself. I've been upset about this for many years. Very many fundamental parts of our lives can be changed by this.

Saying DNA is "almost never" wrong assumes that no mistakes will be made by criminalists, but we all know humans make mistakes. In most DNA testing cases, the criminalist is testing two samples of blood or human tissue and choosing one as the target sample. It is easy to understand that while testing the first sample, the worker simply transfers some of it onto his or her work station and subsequently transfers the first sample to the second sample. That is cross-contamination, and the likelihood of it occurring somewhat frequently is very high; at least, frequently enough to qualify as reasonable doubt.

I just want to note that this drawback does not exist when ruling suspects or convicts out of a crime, because only an absence of DNA is needed to be shown and not the presence of DNA needed by a prosecutor. Furthermore, only a reasonable doubt is needed to prove innocence, which is a much lower standard than proving a conviction.

 

[IanC]

what do you think of using familial partial matches to gather clues to a suspects' identity? a serial killer was caught a few years ago because his son's DNA was in the criminal system and it flagged a family member as the possible suspect in several murders.

is this going too far? is it racist because there are more blacks in the system? or is it just good police work.

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

what do you think of using familial partial matches to gather clues to a suspects' identity? a serial killer was caught a few years ago because his son's DNA was in the criminal system and it flagged a family member as the possible suspect in several murders.

is this going too far? is it racist because there are more blacks in the system? or is it just good police work.

IMHO It's NOT "good" police work; it's guesswork. Murder suspects should only be identified or singled out through hard evidence. Once some police detective declares a man or a woman as a suspect, most, if not all, objectivity goes right out the door.

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

The officials we trust to solve violent crimes have an important job to do. And of course, when they parade someone out before us, the majority trust the police and their laboratories to be totally up front and honest. However, we know the police are not like that and often put on blinders. They want to please the public very badly and mitigate the losses to families so they will invariably cut as many corners as necessary to reach their objective.

Once that process is begun by naming or arresting a suspect, and it reaches the courts, police and lab workers' testimonies cannot be questioned, except by the most elite of attorneys. You might as well reinforce your submission right now. They win. Followers always lose when the stakes become high.

The erudite have played the ignorant masses for thousands of years.