
DNA Evidence Can Be Fabricated, Scientists Show (2009) - apo
https://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/18/science/18dna.html
======
coldtea
DNA evidence combines two of the worst characteristics:

1) Taken as if it's the gospel of God to establish guilt

2) Very easily stolen/taken from a person and planted to a crime scene.
Perhaps not for something like DNA found in a pool of blood on a fight scene,
or semen at a rape, etc, but anything involving e.g. hair, nails, and other
easily obtained body scraps...

As someone from an area of the world that used to have a large "deep state",
police routinely planting stuff, and so on, I hate this kind of "proof".

People from Latin America, Africa, certain places in Asia, East Europe, etc
will probably identify.

But even in the US, I've read tons of such stories, where the police had it
for this or that person and planted evidence. Doesn't even have to be corrupt
police, they just might be "certain" that "this n...a did it" without actually
having evidence.

------
Swenrekcah
Can’t trust DNA, can’t trust videos or audio, certain state actors spewing
constant misinformation...

We’re back to the 1800s in terms of the average person’s ability to know
and/or prove the truth. Except this time around the state and some
corporations have near-complete surveillance capabilities.

~~~
gumby
We still rely on fingerprints which have never been proven to be unique, much
less actual pseudoscience in the USA like "fire analysis." Might as well be
dunking the accused to see if they are witches.

~~~
pitaj
Don't forget about shoeprints, dental imprints, drug dogs, and other bunk

------
stallmanite
Thanks for posting this. It’s surprising how few people are aware that this is
possible.

~~~
notahacker
It's more of interest for curiosity's sake than anything else. It's always
been the case that a person could be framed with "DNA evidence" with the
considerably more low tech approach of obtaining leftover hairs or bits of
skin (or legally mandated DNA samples for testing) and depositing them at the
crime scene, or simply finding a lab willing to lie about carrying out a test.
DNA testing as evidence has always relied on the assumption the people
collecting and testing the samples are honest (and competent)

~~~
scoggs
Sorry for the long post but I felt it was related and contains personal
experience in a criminal case tried by a jury that I took part in:

\----------

This always comes to mind when I think of anything to do with "DNA Evidence"
or "using Lab analysis or DNA sequencing" in terms of crime scene evidence as
the "most important" or "most damning" portion / part of evidence brought
against a defendant:

Annie Dookhan, chemist at Mass. crime lab, arrested for allegedly mishandling
over 60,000 samples

\----------

[https://www.cbsnews.com/news/annie-dookhan-chemist-at-
mass-c...](https://www.cbsnews.com/news/annie-dookhan-chemist-at-mass-crime-
lab-arrested-for-allegedly-mishandling-over-60000-samples/)

Like red light cameras, radar guns, drug dogs and anything else law
enforcement and/or the government like to use to bolster their cases or work
toward a more iron-clad / strong body of evidence to win their case it seems
that DNA Evidence is something that was never really believable or strong
beyond a shadow of a doubt.

I spent over a months time on a jury for a double attempted murder and while
95% of the testimony, expert analysis, and other direct / cross-examination
was compelling enough to keep me focused and tuned in the lengthy, scientific,
and overall information-packed expert testimony from the DNA Lab Scientist who
performed the DNA Analysis did little to keep me awake.

Throwing endless numbers, percent chance that a sample is from a specific
person, the likelihood that a sample could be from anyone beside a specific
person, or the methods and means by which a scientist comes about determining
the likelihood of a given sample belonging to a specific person seems like
something [on paper] that should NEVER have been given enough credit to stand
as evidence that could be believed beyond a shadow of a doubt. I felt certain,
in those moments, that even the smartest folks on the jury and in the
courtroom those days experienced little more than information overload, a lack
of context, and certainly a sense of "I have to believe this because I'm not
informed enough to question it and the world seems fairly certain that DNA
Evidence is not only acceptable but highly accurate and therefore nearly
useless to question".

It all felt and still feels like a grand performance akin to a magician using
misdirection or sleight-of-hand to keep their audience paying attention to the
exact wrong things.

\----------

Lastly, I think it's also important to note that the defendant confessed
immediately upon being picked up by the police without any lawyer present and
it was all recorded on video and audio. The defendant was 99.999% guilty from
all directions including analogical, anecdotal, character, circumstantial,
demonstrative, digital, direct, exculpatory, forensic (beyond DNA), hearsay,
physical, prima facie, and most damning: physical evidence.

I imagine in another case without such strong evidence beyond forensic
evidence being the cornerstone of the State's evidence that the State would
have liked to keep the case away from a Jury thus seeking a plea deal. I can
only assume that would be the case, but from my POV in the ordeal the only
reason the State spent so much specific time on forensic evidence was due to
formality, due to due diligence, and because of the mountain of other credible
evidence it served to bolster all of it.

Without any other hard evidence I can't imagine many juries taking only
Forensic DNA Evidence as beyond a shadow of a doubt. No matter how certain or
how close to 100% a scientist or lab analyst says a DNA Sample matches a
certain persons the entire point of "without a shadow of a doubt" is to
prevent innocent folks from winding up behind bars for things they didn't do
when the people trying to get a conviction don't have the evidence, tactics,
strategy or any other means to demonstrate the Defendant's guilt.

------
mirimir
It's crucial to remember that "DNA evidence" does not mean "DNA sequence".
It's much less technical than that. Basically, you look at some set of
sequences that vary a lot among populations and individuals. The choice of
sequences, and the total number, varies. And it's generally increased over
time.

So anyway, if they were doing a total DNA sequence, fakes would be a lot
harder. Because you'd need to synthesize (or assemble from some library) the
sequence for each chromosome. And that's still _a lot_ harder than doing a
complete sequence. For now, anyway.

~~~
coldtea
> _So anyway, if they were doing a total DNA sequence, fakes would be a lot
> harder._

Wouldn't they be as easy as taking some hair from a person and dumping it to
the crime scene to be collected?

Doesn't even have to be the police, someone wanting to frame them could do it
trivially.

~~~
mirimir
True. But they'd need physical access to the target.

And actually, back in the day when I mailed cash, that was part of my OPSEC. I
had a jar full of dust from public places. Working with disposable gloves, I'd
put the cash in a new plastic bag, toss in some public dust, and shake well.

~~~
coldtea
> _True. But they 'd need physical access to the target._

Or to just go (or have someone go) right after them at the hair saloon?

~~~
mirimir
That's also physical access.

My point is that $TLA couldn't get DNA to implicate $TARGET in a murder, if
they don't know where $TARGET is. Or know anyone who does. But if they can
obtain $TARGET's DNA test results, they could fabricate evidence.

~~~
coldtea
> _That 's also physical access._

We've already discussing the situation that someone is committing an actual
crime for which they want to frame another. Compared to that, getting
"physical access" to someone's hair saloon is a trivial part.

> _My point is that $TLA couldn 't get DNA to implicate $TARGET in a murder,
> if they don't know where $TARGET is._

Why wouldn't they know where $TARGET is? That's the easiest thing to know.
That would only be a problem is they wanted to implicate fugitives already on
the run or in hiding, or Waldo.

------
21
For alibi, in the future it would probably be a good idea to have a 24/7
personal body camera which timestamps the video using the blockchain or
something.

~~~
renholder
Would have to be self-contained; otherwise, the video could _always_ be
edited...

~~~
KingMachiavelli
Perhaps camera sensors could digitally sign their output using an invisable
watermark? It's been an idea I've had since deep fakes became a thing.

~~~
21
Doesn't really solve the problem, there are many ways of bypassing that, from
having a small screen in front of the lens playing fake video, to hacking the
firmware.

