DNA in the Amanda Knox Case: Experts Refute DNA Evidence Successfully

Wired has a great article today detailing the problems found in the DNA evidence presented by the prosecution in the Amanda Knox murder trial, written by John Timmer for Ars Technica and entitled, "Courtroom Science Drama: The Saga of Amanda Knox’s DNA."  

One of their experts is Dr. Lawrence Koblinsky of the John Jay College of Criminal Justice in New York.  You may have seen him on TV.

Point being that the DNA evidence used in the Knox trial not only served as a major tool for the prosecution to have Amanda Knox found guilty of murder, it was also a key factor used by her defense team on appeal to achieve her release.  Arguments post-conviction included not only that Italian law enforcement may have compromised the DNA evidence during their investigation, but also that DNA evidence found on the murder weapon (a knife) was miniscule and irrevocably tainted in the attempt to amplify that tiny amount into something bigger and therefore, easier to analyze. 

My prediction: the Amanda Knox case will serve to publicize the weaknesses in DNA evidence and more criminal defense attorneys - both at trial and on appeal - not only will spend more time and effort challenging DNA evidence, the likelihood is increasing that their efforts will be worthwhile. 

dna, evidence, trial, technology, crime

DNA Evidence Can Be Faked - So Why Do We Continue to Consider DNA Infallible?

DNA is easier to fake than fingerprints at a crime scene, according to scientific experts, and this is something that's been public knowledge for several years now.  Read the 2009 article in the New York Times, for example; written by Andrew Pollack, entitled "DNA Evidence Can Be Fabricated, Scientists Show," it's got lots of details.  Or go peruse the research paper written by Dr. Daniel Frumkin in Genetics, a source mentioned by Pollack in his coverage. 

Why Don't We Know That DNA Evidence Is Not 100% Trustworthy?

No one talks about this much, and I wonder how many people really know that we cannot trust DNA just because they do it on TV.  Heck, in one Law and Order: Special Victims Unit episode, even the TV cops found out that the DNA in their case had been faked.  (If you're interested in watching, that was episode 9 of season 11, entitled "Perverted." Watch it here.)

Faking someone's DNA is easy to do, and it doesn't take all that much skill or education.  Apparently, all an evildoer would need is the saliva sample of one person - which they could get off a tossed coffee cup or drinking straw or fork or spoon (well, you get the idea), or from a hair sample, again something that could be pulled from the trash.  Then, through a process called "whole genome amplification," the evildoer can create fake DNA samples of that person which evildoers, being what they are - evil doing - could use to cause all sorts of mayhem. 

But that's not the whole story.  It's even easier that this for the sinister scientist who wants to fake someone's DNA.  If they don't have that tossed coffee cup or hair from a comb, no problem.  DNA can also be faked if they can get access to the person's DNA profile, stored somewhere in a computer database.  They can cook up some fake DNA using the info on the database as their recipe.

So, why aren't we being told about this?  We all need to know that DNA isn't infallible, that we shouldn't automatically trust DNA evidence. 

Why?  Well, I'm just as concerned about overzealous prosecutors as I am about outlaws taking advantage of this opportunity.  Seems to me that it is only by greater public awareness that this can happen (and that questionable DNA evidence can be tested to see if it has been faked) that an evildoer trying to plant DNA evidence for sinister purposes can be thwarted. 

Troy Davis and Judge Moore: What Was the Evidence in this Case?

Troy Davis was executed by the State of Georgia, despite all the controversy surrounding whether or not this man was innocent of killing a police officer, long ago, in the parking lot of a fast food restaurant.  Since the execution, I've read all sorts of stuff on the web about this case - from Ann Coulter to Alec Baldwin - and it's left me wondering: okay, what WAS the evidence in this case?

Earlier, I posted what I understood to be accurate - that the majority of the eyewitnesses had recanted and that there was no physical evidence presented by the prosecution at the trial where Troy Davis was convicted.  Was this true?  (No.)

Also, I wrote that the United States Supreme Court had done something very unusual when they sent the case down for an evidentiary hearing before a district court judge (Judge William Moore of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Georgia, Savannah Division).  As I recall, this was the first time that the High Court had done this in around 50 years.  The federal trial court judge would serve as a fact-finder, grading the papers of that Georgia jury. 

Interesting - a single federal judge given the opportunity to overturn a state jury.  Think about that, it's a big deal. 

So, after pondering all this, I went to the very long opinion that Judge Moore issued in that unusual hearing, and I have posted it at Google Docs for anyone who wants to read it (it's almost 150 pages, and it appears in two parts):

Judge Moore's Opinion re Troy Davis Part One;
Judge Moore's Opinion re Troy Davis Part Two.

The evidence that was considered in the Troy Davis case is presented at the beginning of this opinion.  After that, an analysis of that evidence under a "clear and convincing" standard is given; a standard not as stringent as that of "beyond a reasonable doubt," as discussed on page 80 of the Pattern Jury Instructions of the Eleventh Circuit.  (Judge Moore spends significant word count explaining the burden of proof he believes applies in his determinations.)

Bottom line, it is this opinion that I think everyone should be reading before they consider the words of political commentators - Judge Moore obviously wrote this opinion with the expectation that many eyes would be reading and reviewing his work. 

• Was there physical evidence?  He discusses shell casings found at the scene of the crime.
• Why wasn't he swayed by the eyewitnesses who recanted?  He goes into detail, witness by witness, regarding what they said then and now.

Did the State of Georgia execute an innocent man?  I don't know.  I do know that I learned something from this opinion and I wish I had read it, in all its details, long ago instead of reading a lot of the other stuff out there on this case. 

Institute of Medicine Report Sketches Basic Insurance Package: Can Americans Afford $458/Month in Individual Premiums?

Media reports, like the article published today by the Associated Press entitled "Feds to design health insurance for the masses," are giving various takes on the new 300-page report released by the Institute of Medicine.

You can read the full report online, for free, at the Institute of Medicine's website (or buy a copy for yourself).  The report, Essential Health Benefits" Balancing Coverage and Costs (2011), has been compiled by independent experts with the goal of providing a framework for the Obama Administration on how to create a basic benefits package that covers "essentials" and yet remains affordable.

The cost?  At the low end, they are talking $5500 (high end is $7000) in annual premiums for individual coverage.  Take the lowest figure, $5500, divide it by 12, and you've got a monthly premium (for an individual, not a family) of $458.00.

This week, there was another big news story:  48.5% of the American population received some type of help from the federal government in the months of January through March 2010 according to the latest Census.  That's right at HALF of the American households, a year and a half ago. 

CNN points out that 46,000,000 Americans live below the poverty line and that employment is right around 9% right now.  CNN's Jack Cafferty writes, "Here’s my question to you: How long can we go on with almost half of Americans living in households that get government assistance?"

So here's what I'm wondering:  Can Americans afford $458/individual premium added to their monthly budgets each month?  (No, according to these other numbers, Americans cannot make this payment.) 

Before we even get to the constitutional issues or the political finger-pointing, shouldn't this be the first question?  

Twitter, Facebook, Google Information Share With Government As Well As Advertisers: Just So You Know

In a recent article written by Georgina Prodhan for Reuters, "Internet firms co-opted for surveillance: experts," there's lots of information regarding the number of eyes that are reading and accessing e-mail and online social media sites for their own reasons.  Seems that at the Internet Governance Forum held in Nairobi last month, the growing interest of law enforcement in monitoring personal information on the web was discussed. 

Today in America, there is no cohesive federal law that protects information that is placed upon the Internet in the same way that federal laws protect things like telephone conversations, where longstanding privacy regulations govern wire-tapping access.  What you say on your phone is protected; type it into Twitter, and it's not.  Same sentence, two different venues.  And your favorite internet sites keep all your stuff going back at least two years. 

Privacy really took a back seat after 9-11.  The Patriot Act (amended in 2006) not only expanded the types of records available to government scrutiny, but it made it a lot faster and easier for the government to jump privacy hurdles with things like subpoenas and search warrants.  For more on the Patriot Act, check out information collected by the Electronic Frontier Foundation and the Electronic Privacy Information Center.

The Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA) (18 USC § 2511) is on the books, but it's a swiss cheese statute, filled with exceptions to privacy and still very much open to interpretation by the various federal appellate courts.  Check out the discussion of its weaknesses at PrivacyRights.Org, where they point out such things as: 

• Your Internet Service Provider (think Time Warner or AT&T) can turn over private emails to the government if one of the parties to the emails gives their okay, and the other party does not get notice of this.  Sender or receiver: if either one gives the ISP their okey dokey on the release of the communications, then the emails will be disclosed. 
• Your employer is free to read whatever is found in the company e-mail.  Send from your business email, you do not have an expectation of privacy. 

Law Enforcement Using Internet Intel More and More:  It's Incredibly Cheap and Easy to Monitor Google, Yahoo, Facebook, etc.

According to the Reuters article, there's a cost benefit here,too.  Seems that a police officer can sit at his/her desk and monitor Microsoft information as well as Facebook data at no cost (since these two powerhouses will provide their information about an individual for free, upon request).  It's extremely cheap to get the info from Google, too:  Google is reportedly charging $25 (Yahoo, $20). 

Sounds good if they are looking for child pornography, illegal gambling sites, or terrorist activities right?  However, what if they're not? 

Protecting Your Privacy on the Internet Is Your Job:  Privacy Laws Do Not Exist to Do This For You

Can you -- or should you -- consider that anything you put out there on the web is private?  Maybe, maybe not.  For suggestions on how to protect yourself on the web, consider the suggestions made at PrivacyRights.org in their Fact Sheet 18: Online Privacy - Using the Internet Safely.   Here, suggestions are given on protecting yourself and your family in your electronic mail communications, as well as internet browsing, online banking, online shopping and bill pay, as well as social media communications (Twitter, Facebook, etc.). 

Image:  By Joyson Noel at en.wikipedia [Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons this is a photograph taken by an agent for the Federal Bureau of Investigation of Albanian-American mobster, Alex Rudaj,outside Jimbo's Bar in Astoria, Queens, New York, on April 15, 2003.