Author Topic: Are there any podcasts which focus on how crimes/mysteries were solved?  (Read 2697 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Desert Fox

  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • **********
  • Posts: 19106
  • Hopeful Non-Theist
    • Kitsune's Web Page
i don't recall any burn pattern or bite marks, but there's other stuff that seems fairly credible like DNA, fibres, shoe and tyre tracks, the usual stuff.

Pretty much all but DNA have issues
https://www.innocenceproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/PCAST-2017-update.pdf

DNA has issues as well with some small samples being very prone to contamination and mixed DNA can also create false positives.
"Give me the storm and tempest of thought and action, rather than the dead calm of ignorance and faith. Banish me from Eden when you will; but first let me eat of the fruit of the tree of knowledge."
— Robert G. Ingersoll

Offline tykraus7

  • Brand New
  • Posts: 5
Up and Vanished is a good one.  It is a guy who started out to solve a murder and did. 

Offline God Bomb

  • Seasoned Contributor
  • ****
  • Posts: 504
i don't recall any burn pattern or bite marks, but there's other stuff that seems fairly credible like DNA, fibres, shoe and tyre tracks, the usual stuff.

Pretty much all but DNA have issues
https://www.innocenceproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/PCAST-2017-update.pdf

DNA has issues as well with some small samples being very prone to contamination and mixed DNA can also create false positives.


Well it's an advancing science therefore imperfect.  Also some areas are subjective, that doesn't mean it's useless.  Even the polygraph, which I believe is complete bunk has a use, it makes guilty people way more likely to confess. 
It seems like most of the issues are in the areas where evidence quality is weak.  A bite mark is not comparable to a orthodontist's putty mould of your teeth, the study you linked shows there can be a lot of false positives even in a fairly small sample set, but if there is something characteristic like a missing tooth or clearly crooked markings, it could still narrow down a range of suspects.  A contaminated, or mixed DNA sample is not reliable, but there are also cases of clear and unambiguous samples, which are reliable.  Also some of the softer forensics aren't used for convictions, they are used more as leads.  A good tyre track might narrow down a search from thousands of cars to dozens, or it might lead nowhere.  But no one will go to prison based solely on a track.
The evidence needs to be judged based on its quality and the methods for interpreting the evidence need to be improved, but I don't think we need to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
« Last Edit: July 23, 2018, 12:32:07 PM by God Bomb »
Fell deeds awake. Now for wrath, now for ruin, and the red dawn.

 

personate-rain