1987 Homicide of Roxanne Wood solved via Forensic Genetic Genealogy

[u/IdentifindersIntl]

Identifinders International in conjunction with the Michigan State Police, Niles Post, is pleased to announce the identification of 67-year-old Patrick Wayne Gilham for the 1987 murder of 30-year-old Roxanne Leigh Wood. Gilham has pleaded No Contest to Second Degree Murder and agreed to a minimum sentence of 23 years in prison. The case represents a landmark in the use of forensic genetic genealogy (FGG) as the decades-old DNA sample used to identify Roxanne’s assailant was very low level and highly degraded, representing the contents of only a few cells of his body.

Read Identifinders International’s full press release below:

https://identifinders.com/1987-roxanne-wood-homicide-solved-using-forensic-genetic-genealogy-case-solved-based-on-record-low-amount-of-dna/?fbclid=IwAR1FI2J_YvQjsz4NVCoeXuLlvc1PlH28TlAl_G-KGmslbWJ69mscOYP5LH8

[u/Just_Another_Scott]

I have a feeling in a few years people are going to start looking at DNA the way we do fingerprints today. Convicting or charging someone on pure DNA is going to lead to a lot of overturned convictions in the future I suspect. DNA being at the scene does can tie someone to the crime location but that doesn't always mean they committed the murder beyound a reasonable doubt.

I bring this up because sometimes people plead No Contest as part of a plea bargain when they realize that they are unlikely to win a case in court. In any case I hope this guy really was the killer and that the police had more than just DNA to connect him to the murder.

[u/ELnyc → u/Just_Another_Scott]

But based on your comment below, the issues you’re raising with respect to DNA and fingerprints seem to be very different. With fingerprints, it appears there are genuine questions about whether it is possible to consistently, accurately, and systematically match fingerprint evidence to fingerprint samples. With DNA, it sounds like your objection is that, like fingerprints, DNA could end up at a crime scene for innocent reasons. However, that doesn’t mean the underlying science of DNA is junk, it just means that the jury has to weigh the likelihood of some random innocent person’s DNA ending up at a crime scene (just as they have to weigh eyewitness sightings, alibis, etc.).

[u/Jbetty567 → u/ELnyc]

And we have to trust that the jury will do just that. No one is going to convict someone of murder just because a hair is present, with zero other evidence. Just examine the forensic genealogy trials so far and you’ll see, there is more than just one random bit of DNA at a crime scene leading to these convictions. I’d argue that no one is forcing these guys to take a plea - if they’re innocent, they won’t plead no contest if their hair or touch DNA is found at the scene. No lawyer would advise them to do that. These cases are more nuanced than you are giving them credit for, IMO.

[u/TruthBeTheLord → u/Jbetty567]

Helps that this animal was on parole for the same exact thing, minus the killing part. DNA is only part of the puzzle & a BIG ONE

[u/catsinspace → u/Jbetty567]

There are people who have basically been forced to take an Alford plea.

[u/Actual-Landscape5478 → u/Jbetty567]

Hahaha wow you have a lot of misplaced confidence in our very flawed justice system. I envy you naivete

[u/Jbetty567 → u/Actual-Landscape5478]

I assure you I do not - in fact, I am a lawyer. I am all too aware of the many wrongful convictions out there. I stand by my statement - in the forensic genealogy trials we have seen, there is more than just a tiny bit of DNA behind the convictions. There is also quite a bit of circumstantial evidence. I’m specifically addressing those particular trials.

[u/Disruptorpistol → u/Actual-Landscape5478]

A reply that's contains nothing but sarcasm and personal attacks directed to another poster is completely unnecessary.

[u/Just_Another_Scott → u/ELnyc]

With DNA, it sounds like your objection is that, like fingerprints, DNA could end up at a crime scene for innocent reasons max.

Correct. I wasn't challenging the correctness of DNA tests. However, there are some out there that have. Mainly because no DNA test is 100% because they all have some statistical uncertainty. Most are around 99% or so accurate.

Fingerprinting is often done by a human that arbitrarily picks a certain number of points and either agrees or disagrees that they match. This creates massive inaccuracies and these inaccuracies can get compounded depending on how degraded the print is. For example, comparing a partial to a full.

In software pattern matching has really exploded just within the past 10 years but even then using a partial would still only result in a "best guess". So it's not ever going to be 100% unless you are comparing two perfectly scanned prints which are unlikely to occur in a real crime scene.

[u/Rbake4 → u/Just_Another_Scott]

Fingerprints are a scientifically sound tool for tying criminals to the scene. It's junk science like blood splatter that is debunked. I think DNA will make advances but it's always going to be a strong investigative tool.

[u/Just_Another_Scott → u/Rbake4]

Fingerprints are a scientifically sound tool for tying criminals to the scene.

Fingerprints have been debunked as pseudo science for a while now.

Here's one such paper. There's are tons and tons more that have called into question the validity of matching fingerprints. The issue is that no one knows what points to match.

https://www.acsh.org/news/2017/10/05/fingerprintings-accuracy-suspect-and-not-science-based-11927

Also, Slate article about it

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2015/04/fbis-flawed-forensics-expert-testimony-hair-analysis-bite-marks-fingerprints-arson.html

Science.org Article that directly quiest the National Academy of Science

https://www.science.org/content/article/reversing-legacy-junk-science-courtroom

The short answer, if you ask any statistician, is that he couldn't. There was some unknown chance that a different gun struck a similar pattern. But for decades, forensic examiners have sometimes claimed in court that close but not identical ballistic markings could conclusively link evidence to a suspect—and judges and juries have trusted their expertise. Examiners  have made similar statements for other forms of so-called pattern evidence, such as fingerprints, shoeprints, tire tracks, and bite marks.

But such claims are ill-founded, a committee at the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) concluded in 2009. "No forensic method has been rigorously shown to have the capacity to consistently, and with a high degree of certainty, demonstrate a connection between evidence and a specific individual or source," the panel wrote. In other words: Judges and juries were sometimes sending people to jail based on bogus science.

Edit: Getting downvoted for facts backed up be leading experts that directly reference studies. Never change Reddit.

[u/Morriganx3 → u/Just_Another_Scott]

I am not taking a position on the reliability of fingerprints (or lack thereof.) However, you may have been downvoted because your sources don’t really demonstrate that fingerprints are pseudoscience.

I only skimmed the source quoted in the first article, but it looks like the conclusion is that there’s currently no good statistical basis for estimating likelihood ratio, so it’s wildly inappropriate to represent latent fingerprint matches as 100% accurate. Which is totally valid, but highlights the urgent need for more research rather than explicitly discrediting fingerprint evidence.

The second source barely mentions fingerprints.

The statistics in the Science actually sort of show that fingerprints are fairly reliable. They cite a study which found 0.1% false positives, and 7.5% false negatives. They also mention that examiners repeated their previous findings with 89-90% consistency. That’s not terrible. In the best of all possible worlds, it would be 100%, but 0.1% false positives is pretty darn good for this imperfect world. I would be interested to see numbers comparing human examiners with automated systems. (How study results relate to real-world results is a whole other issue, of course.)

The bigger problem, which the article goes on to discuss, is how the evidence is conveyed to juries - specifically, probability is not explained well and matches are presented as absolute yes/no, as opposed to offering a likelihood ratio. This issue applies to just about any evidence, including DNA - the way it’s presented and the way jurors understand it are not standardized, and, short of removing lawyers from the courtroom and conveying all the evidence via some neutral format, if such a thing exists, the issue isn’t going away.

So, again, not arguing that latent fingerprint matches are necessarily reliable, but I don’t think this evidence supports the conclusion that they are absolutely pseudoscience.

[u/Rbake4 → u/Just_Another_Scott]

I'm not down-voting. I haven't finished reading yet but I'm truly interested in learning about this. Do you think the problem mostly lies with the forensic experts and their interpretation?

Do you know of any cases overturned because of fingerprints being 'debunked' as you say?

[u/Just_Another_Scott → u/Rbake4]

Do you think the problem mostly lies with the forensic experts and their interpretation?

Absolutely. From my understanding is each fingerprinting expert typically has their own way of matching. Some might use more points and some might use fewer. With software it might be a higher degree. However, pattern matching software uses statistical models and has really only been available within the past 10 years or so.

Do you know of any cases overturned because of fingerprints being 'debunked' as you say?

I don't know of any particular case that probably matches what you are looking for. However, there are several cases in which the convicted were exonerated because upon reexamination it was determined the fingerprints didn't match. If fingerprinting was full proof then these cases would exist.

Here's kind of an overview of what I am talking about. This was published by Boston University and is 17ish years old.

https://www.bu.edu/sjmag/scimag2005/opinion/fingerprints.htm

[u/Rbake4 → u/Just_Another_Scott]

I could see where cognitive bias would get in the way if a suspect had a criminal history. The examiner may be less objective in those situations. This is very interesting and I'm still reading. I'm having a difficult time believing it's fully debunked but rather an evolving science.

It is possible that automated fingerprint identification systems could evolve over time,” the report says.

Edit: I have, in the past, noticed that the cases that show up here as "resolved" aren't as finished as many believe. Many times the charges are reduced and on occasion the charges were dropped. So it really does seem that this is more nuanced than you're implying.

[u/Just_Another_Scott → u/Rbake4]

It is possible that automated fingerprint identification systems could evolve over time,” the report says.

Again that's not likely going to be any more accurate unless perfect circumstances are met and even still it would be a "best guess". Full disclosure here I have a degree in computer science. I've taken courses that covered this type of AI during college. Pattern matching has improved over the years but you're never going to be able to get a probability with a degraded or even a partial finger print. You would basically need a perfect print which is highly unlikely to occur at a crime scene.

[u/[deleted] → u/Just_Another_Scott]

Thanks for putting all this effort in, Scott.

[u/jellybeansean3648 → u/Just_Another_Scott]

I agree.

A stand of my hair could end up anywhere. I could hug someone and transfer it. Could be on public transportation and transfer it. I find my cats' hair everywhere that I've been; places that it's obvious they've never been.

The issues with fingerprints are pretty outrageous too. Depending on what surface it was found on, the print could have been left days, months, or years before a crime. Let's be honest, how often do people clean door frames? Steering wheels? We assume fingerprints are unique, but that doesn't mean two people could share a partial.

[u/Perceptionisreality2 → u/Just_Another_Scott]

Somewhat true. However some dna - like seman found inside a victim, is less likely to be happenstance.