as I said in my post, how they approach the people they get hits on is where the problems actually are.
this isn't like "bitemark analysis" where the results themselves are used to convict people, once someone is found using this method DNA testing will confirm or deny that it's the right person.
Because of this, there will be solid evidence that this approach works or doesn't work. It will continue to be used or not continue to be used because the resulting DNA test provides conclusive evidence that it works or doesn't. As opposed to bite mark analysis, which relies on expert testimony with all the perverse incentives that exist there.
We agree on the potential problems around getting DNA samples to confirm, but the technical use is harmless otherwise.
Comments
as I said in my post, how they approach the people they get hits on is where the problems actually are.
this isn't like "bitemark analysis" where the results themselves are used to convict people, once someone is found using this method DNA testing will confirm or deny that it's the right person.
Because of this, there will be solid evidence that this approach works or doesn't work. It will continue to be used or not continue to be used because the resulting DNA test provides conclusive evidence that it works or doesn't. As opposed to bite mark analysis, which relies on expert testimony with all the perverse incentives that exist there.
We agree on the potential problems around getting DNA samples to confirm, but the technical use is harmless otherwise.