News
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
view the rest of the comments
There's a lot of "these allegations will be proven false in court" going on in this article.
My dude, there's DNA evidence. What allegations are there to disprove??
And why does it matter that it was before he worked at your clinic?? Like if someone had been found to be groping patients or stealing at their last identical job, there's no reason to be concerned they might have continued to do so while they worked for you?? No 'we'll look into this and be sure nothing untoward happened'??
"This was before he worked with us, and now we have safeguards in place, by which we mean we're aware he's a pervert and we watch him like a hawk, or whatever legal equivalent will absolve us of any wrongdoing for providing him with a target rich environment in exchange for the prestige."
This DNA evidence isn't exactly CSI-quality:
Results from self-test family ancestry companies are questionable at best.
Proving paternity will require a forensic DNA test of the alleged father.
It may not be CSI quality, but it is FBI quality! Those EXACT tests and types of matches were how they identified the golden state killer and identify hundreds of John/Jane Does every year these days.
Turi King, who worked on the Richard III identification, has done very great and approachable lectures on those tests and how they're used in forensic genetics. Highly recommended watch BTW, and several are available on YouTube - she has one on just those tests and how they can be used as well as discussing their strengths and weaknesses with examples.
The "I'm 3.2% Native American" stuff is (mostly) BS, but if it's identifying specific matches, it's pretty strong evidence. It's not definitively HIM until they test him specifically, but it is the exact sort of thing that should put you on a suspect list and warrant him spitting in a cup, yeah.
The only way I could see it NOT being him is if he was using a close relative as the source, but I'm not sure why he wouldn't say that once challenged. Technically, that would have fulfilled the requirements of "anonymous" and "unknown to the mother" he promised.
That's my point. They haven't identified him, the company said she matched some of his relatives. However, it's quite possible that she also matched some unrelated people, i.e. this is a false positive.
This is closely related to the "prosecutor's fallacy". If the doctor had only a one in a million probability of matching her DNA, most people would consider this conclusive evidence that he is the father. In reality, there are over 300 individuals in the US who would also match, so absent other evidence there is less than a 1 in 300 probability that he is the father.