Tag: news

I Don’t Want to Talk About it

Photo by Towfiqu barbhuiya on Pexels.com

Discuss politics? No, thank you.

There are several reasons for this. The first is that I am not the most knowledgeable person on political topics, so I’m not really in a position to debate policy with you. Also, I work with the public and so taking sides can mean alienating a customer, or presenting a look that is not the best for my employer. But mostly, I just don’t enjoy it.

I usually decline to get into a political conversation and will plead ignorance on the topic. I do not want to voice an opinion only to be greeted with random facts that start with “Well, did you know. . .? ” No. No, I did not. And I don’t know that it’s even a fact based on just you telling me it is. Let’s face it. Knowing fact from fiction gets harder every day. So if it will put an end to the conversation, I will readily admit you know more about it than I do, and therefore, there is no reason to discuss it.

I’m in an occupation where I have conversations with many different people on a daily basis. Trust me, I never bring it up, but many people feel the need to slide it into our conversation. They’ll say, “I don’t know who you support, but. . . ” or “Not to get political, but . . .” So I often plead the fifth. I’ll just smile when someone insists on sharing their opinions with me. I never share my political affiliation, minor though it may be, and I do my best to discourage the conversation. The most they’ll get from me is “that’s very frustrating.”

Because it’s always a complaint, isn’t it? The people I know who claim to know the most about politics–the supposed “informed” people–are angry, bitter, or sad. That’s on both sides of the aisle. Doesn’t matter which side you’re on. And conversation usually takes the form of complaining about the “others.” It’s almost always about people. What this one is doing or what that one is doing. Whether or not their guy is the one in power, they will still take any opportunity to disparage those who are in opposition to their views. Seems to me that conversations of this sort always leave everyone feeling worse. There’s not a lot to be optimistic about when someone begins the conversation with a complaint. And if they’re hoping to change someone’s mind, well, that never happens.

I had someone in my office several days ago who was so disgusted and upset about something she had seen on social media that she honestly seemed depressed and completely anxious about the whole thing. I was genuinely concerned for her state of mind. I’m certain that if I were analyzing everything and compulsively watching news and social media each day, that I would certainly be angrier and more anxious too. That doesn’t feel like a healthy place for anyone to be. It must be a full time job for the informed. It certainly is for many people I see on social media. It certainly is for my recent, distraught customer. And its a job that doesn’t pay well financially, or emotionally.

And trust me, I respect all opinions. Let’s face it, no political party is “right” on every issue. I even know that often I might be wrong, based on the facts. Also, I admire their passion. I too love our country, and believe that democracy is a great thing. I just don’t often recognize democracy in our current political systems. I am neither a historian nor a political science student, but I think the point of democracy was for people with differing opinions to work together to find the best solution for everyone. Or in the absence of agreement, for a vote to take place so the majority can decide.

I do watch the news. But how much news is too much? Is there such a thing as being too informed? And how do you ensure that you’re hearing both sides? I know the channels I watch are biased. It’s very clear to me. But that doesn’t mean I agree with all of their assessments. I try to think about the “issue” vs the “individual,” using my own moral code, and respect for our history and tradition and values of our country.

I also vote. And that’s one recommendation I can make to everyone. It might be the only power we have, and the only thing we can all agree on in terms of what we should be doing. When I vote, I consider my feeling about what is “right,” and “ethical,” both of these terms encompassing my own belief system, no doubt with it’s foundation in my upbringing. Your feelings about what is right might be different from mine. That’s great! that’s what Democracy is all about. I will continue to respect your opinion, and we can still be friends, just don’t try engaging me in a conversation on voting day.

In my perfect world, we could have a conversation together and share our opinions with each other, listen to one another. This might lead to each of us being better able to see the other person’s perspective, and ultimately could lead to a solution that satisfies both of us. And in the absence of that utopian process, I respectfully decline to talk about it.

The Miracle of DNA: Finding a Killer

Photo by Karolina Kaboompics on Pexels.com

I am addicted to True Crime stories. Dateline, 48 Hours, podcasts like Crime Junkie and Dark Downeast are devoted to the topic. And I love them all. Some of these shows wrap things up very nicely: Crime happens, investigation ensues, suspect is identified, suspect is tried and convicted. That’s a very satisfying ending. Of course it’s also interesting when multiple suspects are identified and questions linger as to who the actual perpetrator is. Then there are the cases where an actual suspect is named but prosecutors don’t feel there is enough evidence to arrest and convict. Or maybe there just isn’t enough evidence to even name a suspect. These last cases often go cold, and remain unsolved for decades, or forever.

But there is hope, and it most often comes in the form of forensic science–the use of scientific methods to investigate crimes. Some examples of forensic science include fingerprints, bloodstain patterns, firearms, ballistics, fire analysis, and toxicology.

But perhaps the most influential is DNA.

The molecule DNA has been known since 1869 when it was identified by Johann Miescher. Following his discovery, numerous scientists were involved in linking DNA to its role in genetics.  Then, in 1953, Watson and Crick would begin the mapping that we now hear about today. In the 1980s, wider use of DNA testing exploded onto the world scene when Sir Alec Jeffreys developed techniques for genetic DNA fingerprinting–aka DNA profiling– that led to a whole new field of forensic science and a process that is critical nowadays in crime solving.

We all have DNA in nearly all the cells of our body. Interestingly, 99.9% of our DNA is identical to all other humans. So it’s in that .1% that the variations occur that make us unique, and enable us to clearly identify an individual. DNA Fingerprinting is the method of isolating and identifying those variable elements. In this way, DNA fingerprinting is much like traditional fingerprints, in that everyone has a unique profile.

The analyzing of DNA has several practical uses, like paternity testing and genealogy, as well as determining susceptibility to certain diseases. Advanced DNA testing has even allowed researchers to identify mutations in rare genetic disorders that have led to targeted, more effective treatment options for individuals. DNA is most frequently collected from various bodily elements including blood, semen, saliva, urine, feces, hair, teeth, bone, tissue and cells.

But we most often hear DNA in relation to crime solving. One of the first cases using DNA to identify a perpetrator involved Colin Pitchfork, who raped and strangled two young girls—Linda Mann and Dawn Ashworth—in 1983 and 1986, leaving behind semen in both cases. He ultimately became the first person in history to be convicted in 1988 of rape and murder using DNA analysis. In a more recent resolution earlier this year, Anthony Scalici was arrested on a second-degree murder charge in the 2009 killing of his uncle Rosario Prestigiacomo. Detectives from New York and Florida had been watching him for weeks, waiting for a chance to get a sample of his DNA, and were finally successful when Scalici discarded a used fork. DNA from the fork was analyzed and was later matched to blood from the murder scene and DNA found under the deceased’s fingernails.

In addition to identifying new suspects, DNA has also recently garnered favor by providing evidence of innocent individuals who were wrongly convicted. One such case in 1999 involved Kirk Larkin who was exonerated after spending 16 years in prison for a rape he did not commit. DNA testing not only proved his innocence, but also led to the identification and conviction of the true criminal.

DNA has continued to advance over the years, allowing proper profiles to be obtained from smaller samples, different types of samples, and older, degraded samples. Technological advances have also made DNA profiling faster, and more affordable, than prior testing mechanisms.

One critical element to the success of using DNA fingerprinting to identify a victim or criminal: There must be two samples to match against one another: One being a suspect’s DNA and the other a sample from a crime scene. But what if we don’t have a suspect? In this case, the crime scene DNA would be compared to CODIS, the FBI site of DNA samples from convicted felons, to determine if the perpetrator is already in the national database. But if the perpetrator has never been convicted of a felony, then their DNA would not be present in CODIS and a match cannot be made. Until recently, these cases would go cold.

Enter Forensic genealogy. The premise of forensic genealogy is that family members share enough DNA similarities to be able to identify biological family members. In forensic genealogy, the DNA obtained from a crime scene is analyzed, then compared to a public genealogy database, like Ancestry.com, where people have voluntarily entered their DNA, most often in an attempt to locate family members. When this happens, an exact match is unlikely, but sometimes close matches can be found that determine some level of familial relationship with the murderer. The testing is so advanced, that it can even determine the level of familial relationship. For example a close relative, like a brother, or a more extended relationship, like a distant cousin. Genetic genealogy is also often used to identify Jane and John Does–unidentified murder victims.

Genetic genealogy was used in the highly publicized case of the Golden State Killer. In the 1970s and 1980s, an unknown individual was suspected of at least 13 murders, as many as 50 rapes, and numerous burglaries. After decades with no arrests for the crimes, advances in DNA led law enforcement to turn to genetic genealogy. They entered crime scene DNA into a public database and got a match to what was likely a third cousin of the suspect. From there they recreated a family tree, and used investigative procedures to rule family members out based on physical attributes provided by witnesses to the crimes, as well as other strategies like who was physically in the area at the time of the crimes. This lengthy process led to the 2018 arrest of Joseph DeAngelo, who later pled guilty to 13 murders.

An even newer, interesting element of DNA forensics is phenotyping. In phenotyping, scientists use a person’s DNA to determine physical characteristics like eye color, skin color, ancestry, facial shape, height, and freckling. Using this information they can create a profile, and from that, pharmaceutical companies have begun compiling features, and eventually a “picture” similar to a sketch that might be created by a police sketch artist based on a witness’ description of a potential suspect. In one such case, after several body parts (a hand, and later a foot and rib cage) washed up on the rocks in Brooklyn in 2015, with no leads as to the identity of the victim, police used phenotyping to develop a picture of what the deceased person might look like, in the hopes that someone might recognize them and lead to an identification. The process has also been used to attempt to identify suspects.

There is a lot of debate over the usefulness/fairness/legality of using phenotyping. Detractors question its accuracy and fear it could lead to arrests of innocent people, based solely on a close likeness. Indeed, there have been individuals who have been questioned, who were later released after DNA to DNA comparisons were made, eliminating the individual as the perpetrator. And the phenotyping process is very expensive: $4000-$5000.

DNA testing is not a magic solution. Some potential limitations and drawbacks include: Environmental factors such as heat, sunlight, bacteria and mold destroying DNA evidence, DNA being unable to determine WHEN the suspect was at the crime scene, Lack of sufficient samples, Expense, contamination, and fraudulent transfer of DNA can sometimes affect accuracy.

But the number of cases that have been solved using DNA evidence are countless. This includes suspect identification, victim identification, and suspect and convicted suspect exoneration. If you’re a family member of a victim, or of a wrongly convicted suspect who was later cleared, you are likely very relieved that DNA brought about a resolution. In the world of crime solving, DNA is still the best weapon we have.