fandomsecrets | [ SECRET POST #5958 ]

[ SECRET POST #5958 ]

⌈ Secret Post #5958 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.

__________________________________________________

02.

__________________________________________________

03.

[Succession, Roman Roy]

__________________________________________________

04.

[minecraft youtube?]

__________________________________________________

05.

[Green Hell]

__________________________________________________

06.

[Lost Ruins]

Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 30 secrets from Secret Submission Post #852.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

01. https://i.imgur.com/IQVUt1u.png

I'm tentatively suspicious. I mean, the blood spatter analysis and handwriting analysis people turned out to just be making shit up.

Well, I guess it depends on how much you trust DNA testing. The process uses databases of user-submitted genetic samples to find a related match to a sample taken from the crime scene. For example, maybe the murderer who left their DNA on the victim isn't in the database, but their third cousin twice removed might be. So by that process, they can narrow it down to a family... then a branch of that family... then you can check birth/death records, social media, etc. and find out all the living members who might be 1) male 2) the right age 3) known to be living in the area where the murder occurred. THEN you chase down that potential suspect and take a fresh sample of their DNA and run it against the crime scene DNA.

This. "Handwriting analysis" was always qualitative. DNA analysis is quantitative. And if you accept that DNA evidence is reliable, then all genetic genealogy does is give you a larger pool of DNA samples to compare your crime scene evidence against.

I don't think there is any evidentiary process that American police can't find a way of fucking up, whether through malice or incompetence

Entirely accurate. But the fucking up version of DNA testing usually is one of two things: 1. A lab tech deciding to make police happy by finding false positives or 2. police refusing to test or hiding or lying about the results.

And let's be real. Number 1 is less "lab tech decides to make police happy" and more "police offers lab tech financial or other compensation to find false positives," because if lab tech gets caught out they've destroyed their career and are also going to jail when the police department throws them under the bus. And given that the bulk of DNA analysis done by crime labs is still connected to sexual assault cases, the police are typically less incentivized to bribe DNA analysts than, for example, drug chemists.

Yes to all this.

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2023-04-30 02:02 (UTC) - Expand

But as I understand it, "user-submitted genetic samples" doesn't mean the samples come from people who intended to donate them to a policing database. It's people using DNA testing services like 23AndMe out of personal curiosity, but then the cops are given access.

There are major ethical/privacy issues that I wouldn't trust a TV show to handle well. It would just end up being more copaganda.

Most of the companies like 23andMe don't actually cooperate with law enforcement; you usually have to voluntarily submit your data to one of the few that does (like GEDMatch) and for most of them even then you have to actively opt-in to the law enforcement search. So the individuals that match usually have actively chosen to donate to police.

The issue is that just because Aunt Karen consented to helping the cops doesn't mean that Uncle Bart did, but Aunt Karen's DNA matching is close enough to let anyone who wants to find Uncle Bart, and with genetic genealogy even Third-Cousin-Twice Removed Egbert is.

(The other issue is government trying to force sites like 23andMe to share data whether they want to or not.)

Given 23andme's historical issues with data privacy and communication of how they keep said data private, I can see them buckling on this one really quick.

https://d3.harvard.edu/platform-digit/submission/23andme-losing-at-digital-privacy/

At the moment, at least, nobody is convicted based on genetic genealogy alone - they use the genealogy to get a list of suspects, but once they have suspects, they use actual direct DNA testing to confirm a match, the same way they would with any other good suspects. So in theory, it's not any more likely to be wrong than any other DNA testing.

The trip-up is that people do tend to put a lot of trust in DNA testing, and while the actual science part is pretty airtight (unlike with things like blood spatter, which didn't have actual science part!) - if there's a good DNA match, it's really really likely to mean the same person was the source of both samples - it's still perfectly possible for humans to fuck it up or misinterpret it - especially as we get better with testing with really small amounts of DNA, and juries come to trust it more. (Like the case of the "prolific traveling serial killer" in Europe which turned out to be the DNA of a factory worker which had contaminated a whole batch of lab equipment.)

With genetic genealogy, they're increasingly finding matches with people who have literally no other connection to the case and no other criminal history, since they aren't using anything to narrow down the matches other than the DNA itself. So I'm kind of counting down to the day we get a genetic genealogy conviction for someone who later turns out to have just, like, brushed against someone on the bus earlier in the day. (Or perpetrators who deliberately introduce strangers' DNA to crime scenes!)

You... really shouldn't be leaving quantifiable DNA on people that you brush against on the bus. Ew.

All it takes is one hair or a couple skin cells, with current technology, and I hate to tell you this, but you leave skin cells (and if you have short hair, hair) everywhere you go!

The way crime scene forensics are done makes it very unlikely that DNA from the equivalent of brushing against someone on the bush and leaving a few skin cells on their sweater will just happen to be collected in a usable way. But if it were collected, there's a chance labs could get usable DNA from it, and the more people push DNA, the more likely something like that will end up getting collected and tested and used deceptively in a court case.

And the fact that people don't realize how much DNA they leave around them and how good we've gotten at testing very, very small samples, just makes it all the more likely that juries will assume a match means something significant even if it doesn't.

My dude, I don't know what podcast you're getting your information from, but no one is getting reliable DNA results from a couple of skin cells or one (1) hair. Hair doesn't even have DNA unless you pull it out by the root and there's a follicle attached.

Don't pull out your hair and put it on people next to you on the bus. It's weird and creepy, even if you aren't a murderer.

uh, I hate to tell you this, but they are now in fact sequencing DNA from shed hair without follicles. It's not easy and it's not as foolproof as using follicles, but it can be done, and forensics people are working very hard on making it easier.

And I actually mostly got it from my ecology podcasts! The stuff they've been doing with eDNA in the past few years is fuckin' scary. I don't think anyone is doing the scariest parts of it with forensic DNA yet! But the technology is there to do it. A genetic genealogy murder case a couple years ago used a DNA sample of *fifteen cells*. But I don't think that environmental DNA contamination is a huge problem in court cases yet - but like I said, I'm counting down to when it is. And the more people are convicted on no evidence at all other than DNA, the more tempting it will be to use it.

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2023-04-30 02:01 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2023-04-30 02:13 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2023-04-30 11:30 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2023-04-30 16:22 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2023-04-30 18:01 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2023-04-30 19:01 (UTC) - Expand

I think it's a really interesting topic but it feels like the number of possible stories you can tell with that setup is quite limited. Maybe it would be better as like, a one-case-per-season serialized thing?

The number of stories you can tell about family secrets unraveled via DNA testing is pretty big. So many possible variations on people not being related to the people they thought they were related to! Mix and match a crime and a family scandal in every episode and you'd probably have at least a couple seasons before it got old.

Well, now would be the time while it's still new and ethically gray. Even though they take DNA samples with fingerprints in places now, that's only of people who have been arrested. Searchable DNA comes more from ancestry sites and while people may give up legal rights to their sample once it's submitted, it's morally iffy to use DNA that was voluntarily submitted with the expectations for it only to be used for genealogical research and health screenings.

What I'm saying is, I'm guessing there'll be legislation soon enough, it's really walking the line on being constitutional.

There is DOJ policy - police can't quietly upload a fake profile to a genealogy website without first identifying themselves. And the site itself must have informed its users that law enforcement agencies may search their data. It also bars police from using a suspect's DNA profile to look for genes related to disease risks or psychological traits. Another provision attempts to limit situations in which police secretly take a DNA sample from a suspect's relative—from a discarded cup or tissue, for example—to help home in on a suspect. The policy says the person must give their informed consent unless police have obtained a search warrant. But that only applies to DOJ and federally funded agencies.

Some sites forbid law enforcement use (Ancestry, 23andMe, and MyHeritage) and some now have clauses in their agreements or opt-in/opt-out consent (GEDmatch, FamilyTreeDNA).

This sounds like either we’d have the same story every episode or it would need to be sci-fi copaganda. The ethical issues surrounding this make me really uncomfortable either way.

I appreciate the idea but I don't think it has the potential to be a whole TV series. Other procedurals - see CSI for instance - are interesting because they draw on a wide range of investigative or scientific techniques to frame stories around. Forensic geneaology is fascinating, but at the end of the day it's only one technique. Imagine for instance if Dexter was just about blood splatter analysis, and didn't have the secret serial killer/ family drama/ police intrigue plot lines. It would, frankly, get boring pretty quickly.

If you are looking for forensic DNA content, I would recommend the podcast DNA ID, which covers cold cases that have been solved by DNA years later, some of which involve forensic genaeology.

I dunno, I think it'd work. Saying it's just one technique is a little simplistic. You'd still have the forensic aspect of gathering evidence that CSI has, it's just that the focus would be on geneaology and the person doing it. Like in real life, you can't make a case on geneaology alone, you still need corroborating evidence - that's the whole range of techniques and detective work.

Then even on the geneaology side, you'd have the additional aspect of historical research, which CSI doesn't generally cover. That's tracking down family trees, poring over birth and death records, talking to people about their family members, memories, family histories, old stories about who did what and where and when, etc. etc. There'd be potential for historical settings, international settings, unpacking an entire family history... and all the secrets that DNA can uncover. I don't know if you're familiar with what a huge can of worms DNA test kits have opened for people, but just the act of giving all your family a kit for Christmas has thrown major bombshells into a family. That's a lot of potential for conflict and drama.

My cousin found my dad's half sister, via my DNA testing, on Facebook.

He sent her a message and she promptly blocked him. So obviously there's family history she doesn't want to be a part of.

I found out I have Black ancestry(paternal 3rd great grandmother's line, intermarried enough that they could pass by her generation and no one thought twice). On one hand, I wish my dad was here so I could see his face when I told him. On the other, he was racist enough that I'm glad he's not. On the third hand, it confirmed that the family myth/legend of having Native American ancestry was as I thought- not the least bit true.

Bombshells and cans of worms indeed. I was lucky, other than the Black ancestry, nothing I found was a huge revelation. Other people though, hoo boy.

AYRT

Yes, I'm familiar with the skeletons in the closet that DNA test kits can uncover for families. I'm also quite familiar with how geneaological research works. And as a fan of crime procedurals with an understanding of forensic genaeology from true crime I just don't think there's enough there to support an entire multi season 20 episode per season show based on the concept alone.

This is mostly because DNA is binary in crime scenes - it indicates the presence of someone's biological material. Other 'concept' crime shows like Numb3rs or Lie To Me also had a problem of the concept being limiting, but I think with those shows there was at least enough room to move that other crime fighting techniques/ dramatic storytelling could complement the concept.

But with the focus on DNA, there's less ambiguity to hang a narrative on. As a plot device it works much better as the final dramatic reveal than the initial confounding piece of evidence. And even drawing on family drama (secret adoptions, infidelity, sisters actually being mothers etc) or the tension of missing records/ unclear family history, I just don't think there's enough drama there for it to be the bulk of the plot.

I think a factor here is that in a lot of genaeology you are uncovering the history of a known individual, ie their history is the mystery. But in a crime show, the individual's identity is a mystery, and the majority of their interesting family history will be largely irrelevant to finding that out. In other words, the interesting family history stuff needs to be either directly linked to the crime or to finding out the person's identity (or appear to be so) - and writing stories in such a way that e.g. the suspect's grandma's double life is relevant to the crime could get convoluted and unbelievable fast.

That said, I would absolutely watch a documentary on developments in forensic genaeology or on how it helped solve a particular case.

I would also watch a mini series where there's a murder and you gradually find out that it was precipitated by a DNA test that revealed a family secret, but is tightly plotted to keep you guessing about both the secret and the killer.

I can maybe see it working in a cold case miniseries, where perhaps improvements in DNA technology allow for old evidence to be analyzed, and there are cases where it was suspected to be a stranger attack nut DNA reveals that it was a family member, or vice versa. I think it would have to be a miniseries to be able to focus more intensely on the reveals about the suspect/suspects for it to work dramatically.

And of course it would work like a treat as something that is drawn on occasionally in a detective show.

However fundamentally I don't think forensic genaeology would work as a lynchpin concept for an episodic crime procedural in particular.

This is just my opinion of course. And I could be proven completely wrong (who knows what there is already in development?).

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only