tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8731849270338485723.post4730805364910433432..comments2024-01-31T03:00:37.150-05:00Comments on View-from-Wilmington: Gary Leiterman and DNA contaminationChris Halkideshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14933976220776524122noreply@blogger.comBlogger17125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8731849270338485723.post-9377333895140325322018-06-30T09:26:39.437-04:002018-06-30T09:26:39.437-04:00lane99,
You are welcome to continue commenting he...lane99,<br /><br />You are welcome to continue commenting here as long as you attack the arguments and not the arguer. Although Samuel Gross's PNAS article was not the subject of this post, it has come up in the comments, and I see no reason to curtail this discussion.Chris Halkideshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14933976220776524122noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8731849270338485723.post-17132059318217196032018-06-26T07:26:07.604-04:002018-06-26T07:26:07.604-04:00The error rate of 0.027% was suggested by Joshua M...The error rate of 0.027% was suggested by Joshua Marquis in a 2006 Op Ed for the New York Times, and the number was picked up by Justice Scalia. A fundamental problem with with this statistic is that it looks at DNA-based exonerations and compares them to all crimes, the vast majority of which do not involve DNA evidence. Whether or not this is patently ridiculous is up to each of us to determine.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09419532299464498946noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8731849270338485723.post-82087197735087741962018-06-26T07:04:27.065-04:002018-06-26T07:04:27.065-04:00lane99,
One, words to the effect that it is in th...lane99,<br /><br />One, words to the effect that it is in the fine print but not identifying the particular fine print is not an answer to the question of what may be wrong with Professor Gross's methodology. Two, I have no financial incentive to claim someone is innocent or guilty. My only interest is the same one as everyone else's, namely to see that guilty people go to prison and innocent ones do not. Three, consider the following hypothetical: John Doe commits a crime but leaves no evidence. The police manufacture evidence to secure a conviction, but their actions are later uncovered and John Doe is exonerated. IMO the conviction was on false grounds, and including it in a statistic on false convictions is the correct thing to do.<br /><br />However, I don't believe that the John Doe scenario happens very frequently. Can you provide an example of it? On the other hand scenarios in which the police or investigating teams suspect the wrong person and twist or manufacture the evidence to convict him or her are known. With respect to twisting there is Lindy Chamberlain or Greg Taylor, just off the top of my head. With respect to manufacturing that might apply to Steven Avery. I suspect that the serology in the Lloyd Eldon Miller case was manufactured, but it is difficult to be certain.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09419532299464498946noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8731849270338485723.post-13526637958587142702018-06-26T06:06:47.262-04:002018-06-26T06:06:47.262-04:00That "Professor Gross"' statistics a...That "Professor Gross"' statistics are bogus is self-evident and contained in the small print of his methodology.<br /><br />And you may not find it "patently ridiculous" to trumpet that people who actually committed the crimes they were convicted of can nonetheless be "exonerated" of them, but I would think most without an axe to grind would beg to differ.<br /><br />Bye.<br /><br />Dead by Dewanihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15373121017733838399noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8731849270338485723.post-29840869837183209662018-06-14T21:59:46.215-04:002018-06-14T21:59:46.215-04:00Unlike Justice Scalia, Professor Gross did not use...Unlike Justice Scalia, Professor Gross did not use patently ridiculous reasoning. Can you you back up your claim about Professor Gross's statistic? Can you answer my question about Leiterman versus Collins? Can you back up your assertion that the number of innocent people in prison is close to zero? With respect to Mr. Avery, can you offer a logical argument as to when it is OK to ignore one's own control experiments? If not, maybe you would be happier commenting elsewhere.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09419532299464498946noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8731849270338485723.post-7544089357792919092018-06-14T21:48:02.361-04:002018-06-14T21:48:02.361-04:00Samuel Gross includes in his 4% "wrongfully c...Samuel Gross includes in his 4% "wrongfully convicted" many who actually committed the crimes they were convicted of. He's a shyster, as are you.Dead by Dewanihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15373121017733838399noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8731849270338485723.post-23927700797402686392018-05-20T10:50:36.537-04:002018-05-20T10:50:36.537-04:00The right question to ask with respect to Gary Let...The right question to ask with respect to Gary Letterman and Steven Avery is not whether or not they are nice people, but instead whether or not wrongfully convicted. The pertinent question with respect to this blog is to ask whether or not their convictions were based on false or misleading DNA evidence. I have given my reasons with respect to Mr. Leiterman. With respect to Mr. Avery there are at least two potential problems with the DNA evidence against him. One is that DNA that is recovered from a bullet should ordinarily be degraded by heat. Two is that the technician contaminated the negative control with her own DNA. The entire batch of runs should have been thrown out; not doing so is dubious from the point of view of professional ethics.Chris Halkideshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14933976220776524122noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8731849270338485723.post-28109390514210717622018-05-20T10:45:35.133-04:002018-05-20T10:45:35.133-04:00lane99,
You wrote, "The number of actually a...lane99,<br /><br />You wrote, "The number of actually and morally innocent people wrongfully convicted of crime is close to zero. The number of fraudulent claims of innocence epidemic." This is the sort of magical thinking I might associate with Judge Learned Hand. Let us imagine that a jury perceives beyond a reasonable doubt to mean at least 90% certain of guilt. That means that if they have 0-10% belief in innocence they will convict. If one is 90% percent certain, it means that one expects to be wrong 10% of the time, and so forth. In a 2014 paper in PNAS, Samuel Gross and colleagues estimated the wrongful conviction rate at 4% and argue that this is a conservative estimate of the false conviction rate.Chris Halkideshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14933976220776524122noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8731849270338485723.post-65688587940449068232018-05-19T13:57:26.205-04:002018-05-19T13:57:26.205-04:00lane99,
You wrote, "The few that aren't ...lane99,<br /><br />You wrote, "The few that aren't guilty of the specific crime they're charged with are often guilty of other heinous acts and aren't worthy of attention." A person is put on trial for committing a particular act, not something else he or she might have done. When the authorities reason as you have, it can get innocent people convicted, because it becomes that much easier to justify lazy, sloppy, or biased investigations. Which makes more sense, that Letterman murdered her and Ruelas had a nosebleed at the crime scene, or that John Norman Collins committed the crime?Chris Halkideshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14933976220776524122noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8731849270338485723.post-38882327312583689552018-05-19T13:28:22.218-04:002018-05-19T13:28:22.218-04:00As you said, Anonymous, Gary Leiterman can rot. T...As you said, Anonymous, Gary Leiterman can rot. The fact that the do-gooders can not find anyone more worthy of being their posterboys than the Leitermans and Steven Averys of the world underscores the hypocrisy of the innocence industry. Most they shill for are actually guilty. The few that aren't guilty of the specific crime they're charged with are often guilty of other heinous acts and aren't worthy of attention.<br /><br />The number of actually and morally innocent people wrongfully convicted of crime is close to zero. The number of fraudulent claims of innocence epidemic. <br /><br />Dead by Dewanihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15373121017733838399noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8731849270338485723.post-21064506070506485942017-06-21T13:49:26.970-04:002017-06-21T13:49:26.970-04:00I agree that Leiterman's actions don't eng...I agree that Leiterman's actions don't engender sympathy. One news report stated that, "The images showed the girl - drugged unconscious - lying on Leiterman's bed with her clothing pulled back to expose her genitals. Authorities said the pose was an eerie echo of Jane Mixer's corpse." Another one stated that, "Police noted that the positioning of the clothing was similar to the way Mixer was found. The girl told investigators she did not remember taking the photos." Based on just these two reports, I would say that you are overstating your case: "exact same" is a stronger claim than "similar." With Ruelas' DNA there can be no doubt that there was contamination. Given this evidence, what are your grounds for ruling out that Leiterman's DNA arrived in the same way? The prosecutor's claim that it was Ruelas' blood is a good example of the association fallacy, as Peter Gill has called it.Chris Halkideshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14933976220776524122noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8731849270338485723.post-71766763232045379322017-06-21T12:24:28.316-04:002017-06-21T12:24:28.316-04:00Hard to sympathize with someone who drugged a fore...Hard to sympathize with someone who drugged a foreign exchange student who was living with his family, then posed her (in the exact same pose that Jane Mixer was placed in by her murderer) and took pictures of her.<br /><br />He also bragged that, with his access to pharmaceuticals, he could assault any woman he wanted to.<br /><br />He can rot.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8731849270338485723.post-44970359053637663372016-01-01T22:56:41.042-05:002016-01-01T22:56:41.042-05:00Erin Murphy wrote, "Leiterman's sample ca...Erin Murphy wrote, "Leiterman's sample came into the laboratory on February 22, 2002; the evidence in Ruelas's case was processed the day before. Leiterman's sample was first analyzed between July 17 and July 23; Ruelas's reference sample was submitted on July 19 then sent to an outside lab for testing. The Mixer evidence was processed at the lab between March 26, 2002, and April 9, 2002." p. 57, "Inside the Cell: The Dark Side of DNA"Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8731849270338485723.post-35935271897640114732015-12-31T16:27:39.301-05:002015-12-31T16:27:39.301-05:00Ruelas was only four years old at the time that Mi...Ruelas was only four years old at the time that Mixer was murdered, and was not charged with anything regarding her murder. His DNA was tested because he had murdered someone as an adult. The prosecutor's notion that he had a nosebleed at the scene of the crime is risible. I recall some time ago trying to track down exactly when Ruelas's and Leiterman's reference samples were in the lab. My recollection is that with Ruelas it was clear that his sample was exactly contemporaneous with the items from the Mixer murder. However, I had a slightly harder time nailing down Leiterman's sample. It is also noteworthy that the lab had indeed experienced contamination, yet they denied it at the trial. This points out a weakness of the American system, which is that the jury's verdict is treated as near sacrosanct.Chris Halkideshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14933976220776524122noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8731849270338485723.post-67288348933610278302015-12-31T13:19:26.253-05:002015-12-31T13:19:26.253-05:00I remember seeing the Investigation Discovery prog...I remember seeing the Investigation Discovery program on this case. Obviously, the whole trial was not shown in a sixty minute program, but while the Ruelas DNA was mentioned as being present and contamination was possible (though denied by the prosecutor). I did not hear the additional information regarding Ruelas being charged with a crime and evidence from that crime being processed in the same lab where the Mixer murder evidence was processed. Throw in the facts that Leiterman's evidence from his arrest for a prescription drug offense AND that Jane Mixer's own samples showed severe degradation, while DNA found from Leiterman and Ruelas showed no such degradation...the odds of this being something other than contamination must be astronomical. Why is Mr. Leiterman still in prison...Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11065566302899301946noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8731849270338485723.post-65291086692958252212015-05-18T21:10:58.086-04:002015-05-18T21:10:58.086-04:00I added first initials to Peel and Gill. I includ...I added first initials to Peel and Gill. I included year and publisher of the book Misleading DNA Evidence. I changed the word cases to instances in the last sentence.Chris Halkideshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14933976220776524122noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8731849270338485723.post-87891920433193838762015-05-18T20:51:23.152-04:002015-05-18T20:51:23.152-04:00I now refer to John Norman Collins as a possible s...I now refer to John Norman Collins as a possible serial killer, as opposed to a serial killer. He was convicted of killing Karen Sue Beineman, and he is suspected of killing others.Chris Halkideshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14933976220776524122noreply@blogger.com