> ... DNA from the crime
scene was matched to
his client with a
certainty of more than a
million to one. That
is, you'd have to go
through more than a
million people to find
somebody else who'd
match the sample.
Nope. False. Grotesque,
outrageous, brain-dead incompetence.
Instead, even with the "certainty"
of one million to one, might
find a "match" in the next
person or not in 10 million people.
Also, where'd they get this certainty
stuff? I have an excellent background,
thank you, in pure and applied probability,
and we don't use certainty like that
or, really, hardly at all.
Police work with DNA and
associated probability calculations?
This is from a Saturday morning
TV rerun of some old movie of
The Three Stooges, right?
With me on a jury, as soon as the
prosecutor presents
evidence from a police
lab and/or collected by
the police, especially
DNA evidence, I'll be
tempted to stand in
the jury box
and call for
acquittal via acclamation,
dismissal of the prosecutor
and police for incompetence,
and their prosecution for fraud!
As soon as a prosecutor presents
DNA evidence, I know he's talking
total nonsense and, then, tough to
get
a conviction.
Or, commonly a prosecutor will
want to show that the defendant
has a background of lying, etc.
Well, as soon as a prosecutor
presents DNA evidence, I have
to strongly suspect that he
is lying or at least incompetent.
Can't convict; have to acquit.
(1) Police departments? (2) The
biochemistry and probability
theory of work with DNA?
Two things that should never
be combined!
Police? Working with advanced,
delicate topics in science
and math? What a joke -- what
The Three Stooges could make
of that. Now definitely material
for SNL!
Nope. False. Grotesque, outrageous, brain-dead incompetence. Instead, even with the "certainty" of one million to one, might find a "match" in the next person or not in 10 million people.
Also, where'd they get this certainty stuff? I have an excellent background, thank you, in pure and applied probability, and we don't use certainty like that or, really, hardly at all.
Police work with DNA and associated probability calculations? This is from a Saturday morning TV rerun of some old movie of The Three Stooges, right?
With me on a jury, as soon as the prosecutor presents evidence from a police lab and/or collected by the police, especially DNA evidence, I'll be tempted to stand in the jury box and call for acquittal via acclamation, dismissal of the prosecutor and police for incompetence, and their prosecution for fraud!
As soon as a prosecutor presents DNA evidence, I know he's talking total nonsense and, then, tough to get a conviction.
Or, commonly a prosecutor will want to show that the defendant has a background of lying, etc. Well, as soon as a prosecutor presents DNA evidence, I have to strongly suspect that he is lying or at least incompetent. Can't convict; have to acquit.
(1) Police departments? (2) The biochemistry and probability theory of work with DNA? Two things that should never be combined!
Police? Working with advanced, delicate topics in science and math? What a joke -- what The Three Stooges could make of that. Now definitely material for SNL!