Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Mute Witness: Forensic Sketches From Nothing But DNA

timothy posted about 6 months ago | from the why-is-your-yearbook-too-squishy? dept.

Biotech 68

First time accepted submitter Todd Palin (1402501) writes "Researchers at Penn State university are trying to reconstruct images of faces based only on a DNA sample of the individual. As far out as this sounds, they did a pretty good job at matching the actual appearance of the faces. This is a pretty good start on a whole new use for DNA samples. Imagine a mug shot of a rapist based only on a DNA sample."

cancel ×

68 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

If its true then DNA is useless in foresnsics (-1, Troll)

Rockoon (1252108) | about 6 months ago | (#46550141)

"We produced a mugshot based on the perpetrators DNA, then arrested 500 people that looked like that. All 500 peoples DNA matched"

Re:If its true then DNA is useless in foresnsics (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46550179)

You can look the same, but your fingerprints and DNA won't match up. Before we get to the boring stuff like where he was, what was he doing, his connection to x*y/z, possible motives etc etc. I assume you can tell twins apart with science/magic.

It's a helpful stepping stone in a criminal case, not the final nail. And I have a hard time believing any reasonable court of law would render judgement based on a DNA sketch without other concrete evidence.

Re:If its true then DNA is useless in foresnsics (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46550209)

This is bullshit.
How can DNA tell if a person is skinny/fat has a mustache/ is shaved or has tattoos?
Maybe someone bit off his ear when he was young.

Re:If its true then DNA is useless in foresnsics (4, Insightful)

AmiMoJo (196126) | about 6 months ago | (#46550211)

The problem is that this kind of thing makes the police go on fishing trips. Round up everyone who looks a bit like the sketch and ask them for a DNA sample. If they refuse they become a suspect.

The police in the UK have done it that way many times. Ask everyone in the area of a crime to submit DNA samples, often hundreds of thousands. People who refuse to "rule themselves out" by providing a sample are brought in for questioning and investigated, because privacy is no defence in their eyes.

Re:If its true then DNA is useless in foresnsics (1)

Hognoxious (631665) | about 6 months ago | (#46553871)

People who refuse to "rule themselves out" by providing a sample are brought in for questioning and investigated, because privacy is no defence in their eyes.

I don't see what's wrong with that. If they were convicting people based on that, that'd be a different thing.

Re:If its true then DNA is useless in foresnsics (1)

AmiMoJo (196126) | about 6 months ago | (#46556625)

So if you value your privacy and don't want your DNA on the police national database you should accept them coming into your home, taking away all your computers and mobile phones, questioning you for days and then having to explain all that to your wife and employer? Okay.

Re:If its true then DNA is useless in foresnsics (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46557781)

People who refuse to "rule themselves out" by providing a sample are brought in for questioning and investigated, because privacy is no defence in their eyes.

I don't see what's wrong with that. If they were convicting people based on that, that'd be a different thing.

OP didn't think he had to hold your hand down the trail that far.

Re:If its true then DNA is useless in foresnsics (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46550283)

The problem is that they are not matching the entire DNA sequence base pair by base pair like a complete DNA sequence, but only sections of it!
The test is like a hash function. The possibility of the match to someone else is very low, but not zero. Using that to generate a list of suspects which the police can narrow down based on additional evidence is fine. If that's the sole evidence for a trial, then there is a problem.
 

Re:If its true then DNA is useless in foresnsics (1)

Hal_Porter (817932) | about 6 months ago | (#46550353)

Using that to generate a list of suspects which the police can narrow down based on additional evidence is fine. If that's the sole evidence for a trial, then there is a problem.

Well at that point I guess they'd get a torture warrant.

Re:If its true then DNA is useless in foresnsics (2)

Desler (1608317) | about 6 months ago | (#46550533)

And I have a hard time believing any reasonable court of law would render judgement based on a DNA sketch without other concrete evidence.

Why? Are you ignorant of history? There is a long list of people who have been wrongfully convicted because jurors were won over on fancy sounding but faulty DNA evidence.

http://www.innocenceproject.or... [innocenceproject.org]

Re:If its true then DNA is useless in foresnsics (2)

ShanghaiBill (739463) | about 6 months ago | (#46551329)

There is a long list of people who have been wrongfully convicted because jurors were won over on fancy sounding but faulty DNA evidence.

http://www.innocenceproject.or... [innocenceproject.org]

Your reference is the exact opposite of what you claim. It is not about people wrongly convicted by DNA evidence. It is about people wrongly convicted with other evendice, that were supsequently exonerated with DNA evidence.

Re:If its true then DNA is useless in foresnsics (1)

davester666 (731373) | about 6 months ago | (#46552917)

well, in their defense, this is slashdot.

Re: If its true then DNA is useless in foresnsics (1)

Rujiel (1632063) | about 6 months ago | (#46552995)

Different kinds of dna evidence. his point is correct: this will just be another way to hand down verdicts to a bucha people who the jurors happen to think all look same.

Is this a joke? (4, Informative)

RobinEggs (1453925) | about 6 months ago | (#46550229)

You're really not seeing how a rough picture of the perpetrator could help solve crimes, simply because many people will share the same rough picture and have some similar underlying DNA?

Right now DNA often comes in near the end of an investigation; you have to select people to test based on traditional detective work, and then you must legally acquire their DNA to match with your sample. If suspects don't want to give you DNA simply because you asked nicely, you have to be fairly sure of their guilt - and able to convince a judge of why you're sure - before you can get their DNA involuntarily. If this test became effective, the sample you got at the beginning would show you who among the likely suspects to test against, and probably lower the bar for getting legal clearance to take their DNA.

Not to mention you clearly have no clue how DNA testing really works; if it's important you can and will be able to match a decent sample to one and only one person. There are commonplace genetic tests that can produce 1 in 10 trillion profiles of a person's or sample's DNA to match against. The fact that this DNA processing produced a rough sketch matching X number of people is irrelevant when you'll be able to narrow that group to very few or one with the most basic detective work.

Re: Is this a joke? (2)

O('_')O_Bush (1162487) | about 6 months ago | (#46550631)

Their own example show poor results. The only thing that kinda matched was the nose. Everything else was unrecognisably different, including ethnicity.

Re: Is this a joke? (1)

DarwinSurvivor (1752106) | about 6 months ago | (#46554199)

I don't know, I'd say the cheekbones and chin were very close and the mouth pretty close. The rest of the face (forehead, etc) is blocked in the actual photo so I can't really comment on that part, but someone who knew the person may recognize that part. All in all, I'd say it would probably be asier for an aquantance to recognize that rendering than the grainy security camera footage the police are currently forced to rely on.

This technique isn't aimed at getting convictions, but finding suspects (the old "please call the police if you recognise this person" news report). Once a suspect (or "person of interrest" as they call it on the news) is found, then they can request, or get a court order for, an actual DNA match. The rendering probably won't even be used in court.

DNA comes in the first phase already (2)

dutchwhizzman (817898) | about 6 months ago | (#46550873)


Right now, DNA comes in the first phase of the investigation in a lot of cases, especially in countries where the police can get DNA samples of large groups of people without a lot of paperwork and judges involved. Even if they need a judge for individual samples, they still use the characteristics to determine what ethnicity, eye colour and such the person that left their DNA at the crime scene has.

DNA almost always can't prove someone actually committed the crime, only that they were there at some point in time. If prosecutors are lucky, they can come up with some explanation why the DNA can only be left at the crime scene during or directly after the crime, but a lot of the time, that's not possible at all. Only in a very limited amount of cases DNA can be used to identify the perpetrator, mostly rape cases where semen was found and other evidence proves that it wasn't voluntary intercourse.

Really, DNA is rather useless unless you have a sample of a known criminal on file and you can match it to something that has to be related to the crime. Even then, it's common for criminals to contaminate crime scenes with "hair bombs" from barber shops or even items with traces on them stolen from a rival so they get implicated in a crime. Placing false DNA traces is much easier for criminals than placing fake fingerprints. DNA may serve as a tool to narrow down your search or find persons of interest but it seldom will do more than that.

Re:Is this a joke? (1)

plebeian (910665) | about 6 months ago | (#46552233)

I disagree, This article is a joke. Let me introduce one variable. Weight.. Add a hundred or drop 50 lbs and people have a hard time recognizing someone they went to high school with. The idea that a person could reliably identify someone with only genetic information is a joke. That is not to say that if you add other factors into the search you could not possibly use genetic facial reconstruction to aid in identifying people, Just that it is not a magic bullet. I would be willing to bet if you did a random sample of as few as 50 people you would find that the reconstruction they produced for this article is a abnormality.

Re:Is this a joke? (1)

ShaunC (203807) | about 6 months ago | (#46554795)

Right now DNA often comes in near the end of an investigation; you have to select people to test based on traditional detective work, and then you must legally acquire their DNA to match with your sample. If suspects don't want to give you DNA simply because you asked nicely, you have to be fairly sure of their guilt - and able to convince a judge of why you're sure - before you can get their DNA involuntarily.

So police work is hard. Boo fucking hoo. When someone's freedom (or life) hangs in the balance, it ought to be hard.

I know a psychic (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46550191)

Who can tell without DNA .

First Pooop (almost) (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46550193)

first pooooast

DNA (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46550195)

We all know DNA can be changed when you get married.

http://simpsons.wikia.com/wiki/Who_Shot_Mr._Burns%3F_%28Part_Two%29/Quotes
Marge: The police have such a strong case against Homer! Mr. Burns said he did it, they found his DNA on Mr. Burns' suit.

Gattaca (2)

Mortimer82 (746766) | about 6 months ago | (#46550239)

I'm somewhat surprised that neither the article or summary mentioned how this seems inspired by Gattaca [imdb.com] .

Re:Gattaca (1)

wonkey_monkey (2592601) | about 6 months ago | (#46550527)

Maybe that's because it wasn't, and is actually just the latest development in the continuing advancement of the study of genetics, and would have happened regardless of the existence of a 17-year-old science fiction film.

And last time I checked, New Scientist hadn't yet had to stoop to opening most articles with "It sounds like something out of [insert vaguely relevant pop culture reference here], but scientists now say..."

And now everyone has your DNA. . . (2)

Idou (572394) | about 6 months ago | (#46550249)

Well, they always had access to it, but they just could not make it useful by mapping it to a specific identity.

I wonder how many unique individual DNA can be extracted on average by taking a sample of rain run-off from a busy city street? Let me coin the process here as "Gutter Diving."

Re:And now ANYONE has your DNA. . . (2)

VortexCortex (1117377) | about 6 months ago | (#46555303)

Yes, took a while to find, but I couldn't have asked for better. You look about my body build and proportion. Same skin, eye and hair color. Seen in the dark or in passing in a hoodie, I doubt someone wouldn't be equally likely to pick either of us from a lineup. Ah, that was a fine cup of coffee, wasn't it. Well, in addition to dropping mine in that refuse bin too, I'm snatching yours out; Saliva, [x] Check. Oh, silly me, I just meant to drop in this napkin, not my keys and cup. How embarrassing! Seems it wasn't quite empty, good. Oh did I drop something small... Here? No, there my pen is, right next to a couple of your hairs in the seat you just vacated. Quick now, what's the time? "I'll be late", and left turn, was it? Crap, I lost you. That's OK, I know you'll be back around the same time tomorrow or the next day. Then I'll tail you proper for a few days and have your routine down pat to ensure you won't have an alibi when it's done -- There's bound to be a good spot for it along your commute. Might even pick someone you work with rather than a perfect stranger, I've got time, the build up is all part of the fun.

No one would ever think to do something like that! Who would believe all the evidence just happened to point to you as some elaborate frame-job, for what reason? Criminals aren't that smart, and certainly not murderers that leave their blood soaked hoodie with your own hair in it in their own garbage? Your DNA and fingerprints will match evidence at the crime scene: No prints on the body, but it was your first -- maybe a crime of passion, you're not a serial killer -- so you sloppily tossed your cup too near the body.

Evidence, Opportunity, but Motive? Oh, they'll think up some motive, nobody's perfectly innocent; Building narratives from confirmation bias is their job. My my, the jury won't need to hear a peep more once the prosecutor mentions where they found your saliva on the victim. I just LOVE Occam's Razor! Hope you get the death penalty, sucker! Heh, it's almost like two for the price of one.

(un)Fortunately, they stop looking so hard once they "like you" for a crime, and close the case altogether once the long arm of the law has "got their man".

The 100 (1)

harvey the nerd (582806) | about 6 months ago | (#46550257)

Imagine when they investigate 100 sperm donor siblings or "cousins"...

Some twins don't look even like brothers/sisters (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46550277)

Nobody have seen twins that don't look even like brothers/sisters? :/

Re: Some twins don't look even like brothers/siste (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46550649)

Twins don't necessarily have identical DNA - identical twins do however have identical DNA.

DNA anaylsis is fairly conclusive, so why... (1)

The Real Dr John (716876) | about 6 months ago | (#46550285)

would it be necessary to come up with an approximate facial image? If you have the DNA sample, that is far more definitive than the approximated face. I don't understand how this is useful. It might be interesting, but I don't see any practical use in forensics.

Re:DNA anaylsis is fairly conclusive, so why... (2)

Barsteward (969998) | about 6 months ago | (#46550301)

to find the person in the first place, the DNA might not be on any databases.

Re:DNA anaylsis is fairly conclusive, so why... (1)

The Real Dr John (716876) | about 6 months ago | (#46551721)

You will never find the person with a crude approximation of their face, which of course is subject to all sorts of modifications and changes throughout life. You would end up bringing all sorts of innocent people in for questioning because their face looked a little bit like the reconstruction. This is no way to solve a crime.You solve crimes other ways than putting up a wanted poster with a face that may or may not look like the person in question.

Re:DNA anaylsis is fairly conclusive, so why... (1)

Barsteward (969998) | about 6 months ago | (#46556321)

so why do they have police sketch artists and photofit systems? just to please the thriller writers? it is just one added weapon in the armoury, i'm surprised you cannot see this. its not going to convict anyone, the DNA will do that if it matches anyone they find via the sketch

Re:DNA anaylsis is fairly conclusive, so why... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46550387)

Also DNA is not conclusive at all, at least not how to police use them. They only take a very small sample of the full DNA. If you take a police DNA one out of a million person will match it exactly, in the USA that means 300 people will match any sample in the police data base.

Re:DNA anaylsis is fairly conclusive, so why... (1)

ShanghaiBill (739463) | about 6 months ago | (#46550513)

If you take a police DNA one out of a million person will match it exactly, in the USA that means 300 people will match any sample in the police data base.

Sure. But if a woman in New York is murdered, and one of the 300 matches is a auto mechanic in Seattle, who was working at the time, then he can probably be crossed off the list. But if one of the 300 matches is her abusive alcoholic ex-husband, then the police might want to follow up on that.

Re:DNA anaylsis is fairly conclusive, so why... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46551133)

They live together and their dna is everywhere. HE DID IT. NEXT CASE.

Re:DNA anaylsis is fairly conclusive, so why... (1)

Jmc23 (2353706) | about 6 months ago | (#46550497)

What do you think is more useful on a wanted poster.

A person's face ->which pretty much everybody can understand

A dna print ->which nobody can understand.

Seriously slashdot?

Re:DNA anaylsis is fairly conclusive, so why... (1)

wonkey_monkey (2592601) | about 6 months ago | (#46550539)

If you have the DNA sample, that is far more definitive than the approximated face.

But what if you don't have the DNA sample from a suspect? Or even any suspects?

Re:DNA anaylsis is fairly conclusive, so why... (1)

Barsteward (969998) | about 6 months ago | (#46556327)

then you can't do this process, doh

Re:DNA anaylsis is fairly conclusive, so why... (1)

wonkey_monkey (2592601) | about 6 months ago | (#46556395)

*facepalm*

I meant a situation where you have DNA from the crime scene, but don't have and/or can't get DNA from a suspect.

Re:DNA anaylsis is fairly conclusive, so why... (1)

Barsteward (969998) | about 6 months ago | (#46556473)

the point of this process is to create a starting point for finding suspects. How they get the DNA from a suspect is however they do it now and not really relevant to this process.

Re:DNA anaylsis is fairly conclusive, so why... (1)

s1sfx (1883880) | about 6 months ago | (#46558687)

It's a way to do racial profiling.

scott olsen deal;; attacking innocent citizens.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46550333)

looks costly? we pay for that too... not even counting our spiritual bankruptcy. guy should get a purple heart too.. kids marching all over the world now so what gives?

yeah, welll... (1)

cellocgw (617879) | about 6 months ago | (#46550459)

Plastic surgery FTW, eh?

Ok, in seriousness, I could see this as a great tool for anthropologists, but so far as crime-solving goes, it's just about guaranteed to have a false- positive rate about 100x the true positive rate. OTOH, that works for the TSA...

Re:yeah, welll... (1)

wonkey_monkey (2592601) | about 6 months ago | (#46550551)

but so far as crime-solving goes

It's not for crime-solving. It's for crime-investigating.

it's just about guaranteed to have a false- positive rate about 100x the true positive rate

Based on the numbers pulled out of whose behind?

If you've got a shortlist of 10, or even 100, suspects and no other evidence - yet - don't you think even a rough idea of what that person probably looks like might be helpful?

Didn't you play Guess Who? [wikipedia.org] as a child?

Re:yeah, welll... (1)

CrimsonAvenger (580665) | about 6 months ago | (#46552125)

If you've got a shortlist of 10, or even 100, suspects and no other evidence - yet - don't you think even a rough idea of what that person probably looks like might be helpful?

If you've got a shortlist of 10 people, plus DNA evidence, you don't need to guess what he looks like.

You probably don't need to guess what he looks like if you have 100 people and DNA.

On the other hand, if you have a shortlist of 10 or 100 people and NO other evidence, you have no DNA to fake up a picture.

Re:yeah, welll... (1)

wonkey_monkey (2592601) | about 6 months ago | (#46554633)

If you've got a shortlist of 10 people, plus DNA evidence, you don't need to guess what he looks like.

You do if you have no DNA for comparison. Maybe none of the suspects won't give a sample. Maybe you can't get a court order forcing them to provide. Maybe you don't even know who the suspects are - maybe all you have is evidence of their presence near the scene (CCTV, for example). With a rough idea of what the culprit looks like, you can concentrate any subsequent CCTV trawl on the most likelies.

On the other hand, if you have a shortlist of 10 or 100 people and NO other evidence, you have no DNA to fake up a picture.

Err, yes. Obviously. So?

Re:yeah, welll... (1)

Barsteward (969998) | about 6 months ago | (#46556341)

to guess what he looks like will help to give you the 10 people in the shortlist then you match DNA. Police already use artists to create an image so they can create a short list so if this process really works then its another tool in the armoury.

Re:yeah, welll... (1)

stoploss (2842505) | about 6 months ago | (#46551991)

it's just about guaranteed to have a false- positive rate about 100x the true positive rate. OTOH, that works for the TSA...

Just wanted to let you know that there is a term for that: positive predictive value [wikipedia.org] . In the TSA's case, the PPV would be effectively 0.

Thought I would share in the hope that others will return the favor for me in the future.

Interesting, need more sample photos (1)

retroworks (652802) | about 6 months ago | (#46550471)

I fished around the links in the article, including http://www.plosgenetics.org/ar... [plosgenetics.org] and it looks fascinating. But we really need to see more samples. The one of the reporter is quite good, but let's see them do it again.

Re:wrong hyperlink (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46550681)

http://www.newscientist.com/ar... [newscientist.com]
Ya can't ever get it right first try, can ya.

Will only work on ethnic stereotypes (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46550491)

DNA analysis indicates the perpetrator is a black male. DNA sketch artist draws a stereotypical black male . Police nab the suspect and he looks kind of similar to one of the sketches. Then claim success that sketch artists are able to make positive matches on sketches based on DNA!

DNA analysis indicates the perpetrator is a male asian. DNA. Sketch artist draws a stereotypical male asian. Success!

Next up, DNA analysis indicates that the suspect is a female caucasian of mixed european ancestry. DNA sketch artist: On no! we're screwed!

Your face may have been sculpted by junk DNA (2)

iktos (166530) | about 6 months ago | (#46550571)

Interview with Kayser ("we've only found the first five genes"): http://www.scientificamerican.... [scientificamerican.com]
In short: Hair and eye colour prediction: 0.9, height: 0.75, everything else "much lower" than 0.75 with 0.5 being totally random.

And from the article itself: "The next step is to run larger studies in different populations to confirm that the variants found so far are statistically reliable." which explains why there aren't any more test examples.

A bit about how it works ("Fine Tuning of Craniofacial Morphology by Distant-Acting Enhancers"): http://www.evolutionnews.org/2... [evolutionnews.org]

Disappointing (2)

TheHornedOne (50252) | about 6 months ago | (#46550995)

It's a nice story, and they provide a MatLab environment to play around with their model, but ultimately I don't believe this work is reproducible given the materials provided. All we're really given is a sandbox to play in where we can adjust model parameters, and so the work should never have been published.

What would convince me? For starters, the ability to take an arbitrary set of values for these SNPs, punch them in, and see the result change. If I put in SNPs from one of the CEU HapMap samples, I would expect to see a vaguely Caucasian face. If the individual is female, I would expect feminized features. Adding to this, I think we need to see more of the source used in the data wrangling. There's quite a bit of "and then this happened" in the methods.

Re:Disappointing (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46561097)

It's a nice story, and they provide a MatLab environment to play around with their model, but ultimately I don't believe this work is reproducible given the materials provided. All we're really given is a sandbox to play in where we can adjust model parameters, and so the work should never have been published.

What would convince me? For starters, the ability to take an arbitrary set of values for these SNPs, punch them in, and see the result change. If I put in SNPs from one of the CEU HapMap samples, I would expect to see a vaguely Caucasian face. If the individual is female, I would expect feminized features. Adding to this, I think we need to see more of the source used in the data wrangling. There's quite a bit of "and then this happened" in the methods.

Even more, they need to prove there is no chance someone with genome type Q could be mistaken for someone who looks like people from genome type A. I have seen enough dopplegangers out and about to think there is some good work to be done here, but it almost seems like maybe it would just be easier to collect DNA samples from every citizen? I mean, if the idea is to identify us based on our DNA, why aren't they simply asking everyone for their DNA? If there are privacy issues the same issues exist with this proposed use of one's DNA.

suicide rate (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46551547)

The suicide rate will definately go up when people are able to see what they will end up looking like.

Probable cause? (1)

kayaker01 (3569597) | about 6 months ago | (#46551713)

OK, the police have a drawing of what the rapist might look like. Turns out I'm an exact match to the picture, but I decline to give a DNA sample. Do they have probable cause to allow the courts to force my hand?

Re:Probable cause? (1)

Barsteward (969998) | about 6 months ago | (#46556353)

if that was me and i was innocent, i'd have no issue with volunteering my DNA.

Re: Probable cause? (1)

kayaker01 (3569597) | about 6 months ago | (#46557005)

If you ever find yourself in that situation, consult with your lawyer first! If you are innocent it is not your responsibility to prove it. You can only make things worse.

Re: Probable cause? (1)

Barsteward (969998) | about 6 months ago | (#46557065)

how can i make it worse if I know my DNA will not match the crime scene? The only concern would be if they preserve my DNA on a database somewhere if I have volunteered it and I'm not convicted of any wrong doing.

Facials (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46551715)

Imagine a mug shot of a rapist based only on a DNA sample.

A whole new meaning for a facial.
  Excuse me, I have to go vomit now.

Imagine ... (1)

PPH (736903) | about 6 months ago | (#46551739)

... tattoos, scars, meth teeth vs a nice white set of porcelain caps, orange Mohawk or a marine buzz cut, piercings, a broken nose.

Re:Imagine ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46553137)

Even better: partial/complete facial disfigurement as a result of an incident.

Jon Bennet Ramsey (1)

WindBourne (631190) | about 6 months ago | (#46555245)

She had cells on her from unknown sources. It would be great to have a look at the murderer that did this.
Think of how fast it would be to match up.

Interestingly, would courts require you submit a cell in future, if your pix appears to match one?
Also, I wonder if this can be used to capture others that are sitting in jail, but did the crime and simply did not admit to it.

they did a pretty good job (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46555265)

"they did a pretty good job "

SO the resulting picture showed 2 eyes and a nose and a mouth ??

I kinda doubt that and serious shape distinction beyond 'generic' can actually result.

Wow (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46555989)

... I -literally- went to high school with the sampled reporter.

What irony. (1)

sethstorm (512897) | about 6 months ago | (#46556127)

"Researchers at Penn State ... Imagine a mug shot of a rapist based only on a DNA sample."

Such a case seems ironic given that this is the same university that was (recently) involved in a scandal related to such crime.

Awful Idea (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46561077)

From TFA: "The next step is to run larger studies in different populations to confirm that the variants found so far are statistically reliable."

So they don't care if you get sent to jail, even if you're innocent and a criminal goes free, so long as it doesn't happen 'too' often.

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>