Comments by "Setta" (@settame1) on "TOP US DNA Scientist Goes INSANE | Faked Results NOW 3000 Cases In Jeopardy." video.

  1. It’s interesting that the case that brought this to light had other issues involved (jury misconduct).
    16
  2. This isn’t necessarily true. It depends on how it was manipulated. Was it statistically invalid standards, was it lack of peer review - it can be caused by a lot of things and they really were vague on how it was manipulated.
    5
  3. It happens a lot from both genders, it’s just more salacious when it’s a woman
    2
  4. “Do you know if this was DNA or rust?” “It’s a rich source of DNA” “But all the other spots were rust” “Well…yeah” “Do you know who’s DNA” “Definitely a males DNA” “Was it the victim?” “We don’t have his DNA, so I assume so” “Why don’t you have his DNA” “Because there was other male DNA present in his apartment, and we can’t even say the blood from his apparent murder was his” I wish I was kidding about how bad that evidence was.
    2
  5. They’re very unclear what the mishandling was. It could be that she didn’t have a peer review audit and once that’s done it will clear the cases. DNA is rarely the only thing that gets someone convicted, does it happen, of course, but usually there is strong circumstantial evidence. We can’t say she actually was influential in any convictions unless it gets cleared up. That 7mil figure would be much higher if they suspected it would be 600+ retrials.
    1
  6. They don’t specify what the anomalies are. This could be anything from a balance not being within its calibration period (they need to be recalibrated once a year or they could be off by 1/10000 of a gram), or someone didn’t sign off on her lab book within a week which was department policy, it took them 10 days. Or one of the reagents was past its retest date and she didn’t obtain the new certificate or analysis before trial that the reagent was still within specification (even though it was). Analytical labs have very strict guidelines that have to be upheld but honestly don’t make a significant difference. That’s a far cry from someone sneaking evidence out of a lab or switching labels maliciously. I know you can think all those things makes a big difference but having audited analytical labs in the past, they really don’t except for how you can get fined. For instance all speed radar guns need to be calibrated quite often and if they’re over due by a day you can potentially get out of a speeding ticket, but that’s only because in that case there is only one piece of evidence against you (and it probably won’t work if it says you were going 100 in a 30).
    1
  7. That’s really not the case. Many times DNA evidence isn’t the only evidence that’s presented. What about a case where a guy confesses, is caught on video committing the crime and the only reason his case is tossed is because she only had 1 person peer review her DNA evidence while the common practice was 2 (not that it was department procedure, just the common practice). Or one of the scales in their lab was out of audit date by a couple days (this happens a lot). You don’t throw the baby out with the bath water. If the misconduct was that bad that they were looking at 700+ trials there’s a good chance it would be more than 7mil they are looking at for the error.
    1
  8. Ironic that if Bryant were convicted he’d be alive today.
    1