Table of contents |
Forensic mathematics home page |
Charles Brenner, PhD
February 25, 2023
Sometimes a mathematical – i.e. logical, objective – framework for making a decision based on evidence is possible. The framework is
Attaching numeric probabilities to subjective beliefs is a bit of a fiction or metaphor. |
“Objective probability” tends to mean a probability with a scientific foundation. Pragmatically speaking it means undisputable, as opposed to “subjective probability” on which people can differ. |
Such a framework can be quite useful when part of the evidence is objective, quantifiable, and is much stronger that any countervailing subjective evidence is likely to be. Matching snippets of DNA to identify a body or to decide paternity are classical examples.
One way to analogize the DNA identification model to the observation of C. bot DNA in Neruda’s tooth would be to hypothesize on the one hand that the C. bot was deliberately injected to kill, or alternatively that it was accidental from contaminated food, then imagine there is a way to calculate and compare probabilities, for each hypothesis in turn, of producing the details of the data that is actually observed. For example whether or not the molecular equivalent of live ammunition can be discerned in the data would logically be evidence one way or the other. But there is no possibility to estimate objectively how much evidence it would be.
And even if that impossibile exercise were possible, note that it does not address the a priori probability of assassination. If you agree that is a matter of opinion, then it may reasonably remain a matter of opinion in the face of the improved genomic information. For a person who, a priori, felt that the coincidence of Neruda’s death so soon after Pinochet’s coup is nearly proof by itself, the evidential increment of even slight scientific support could cross the decision threshold to proof. But another person – maybe a “two sides to every issue” type, a priori on the fence between assassination and death by cancer – would logically adjust by the same increment in the face of the scientific evidence but that would leave him still on the fence.
Whether Neruda died of botulism (or of any attack) is not yet answerable by science or mathematics.
This is the text of the “Executive Summary” submitted to the Chilean
tribunal. It summarizes the technical reports from the
McMaster University and University of Copenhagen laboratories, carefully
discussed and edited and unanimiously agreed by the five authors listed.
We aimed for brevity, ordinary language, and scientific neutrality.
The sidebars are of course not part of the Summary. Some of them are to emphasize distinctions overlooked by some reporters. |
Third International Panel of Genomic Experts
Contributions from McMaster University, University of Copenhagen, and Forensic Mathematician Charles Brenner, PhD
10 February 2023
In order to comply with the Resolution issued by Her Honor, Judge Paola Plaza González, Minister in Extraordinary Hearing of the Court of Appeals of Santiago, dated December 15th, 2022, in Case 1038-2011, 34th Crime Court, Santiago, Chile with the support of the Human Rights Program, Ministry of the Interior and Public Security, Government of Chile, to convene the International Panel of Genomic Experts III from January 24th to February 3rd, 2023, for the purpose of the investigation into the cause of the death of Mr. Pablo Neruda, the following preliminary report is presented:
The toxin responsible for botulism, a condition involving paralysis, suffocation, and possibly death, is produced by some strains of the bacterium C.bot.
“some strains” |
It could be that a toxic strain of C. bot was administered to assassinate Neruda. Like many other bacteria, even non-toxic C. bot strains can trigger sepsis (blood poisoning), which is most often fatal if untreated. It is also possible that the C. bot strains found in Neruda’s remains are non-toxic strains from contaminated food ingested before death.
Contrary to gossip, the genomic reports do not mean that the C. bot. strain detected in Neruda’s body is Alaska E43, nor that he was innoculated or poisoned at all. |
or not present |
Neruda’s medical dossiers document that Neruda had recurrent urinary infections. The DNA analyses showed evidence of bacteria known to cause urinary tract infections.
This section is a reply to a specific request of the magistrate, not summary. Evidence above is a longer treatise on the subject. |
Charles Brenner, PhD DNA·VIEW USA |
Professor Hendrik Poinar, MSc, PhD McMaster University Canada |
Marie-Louise Kampmann, MSc, PhD University of Copenhagen Denmark |
Debi Poinar, MSc*) McMaster UniversityCanada |
Professor Niels Morling, MD, DMSc University of Copenhagen Denmark |
*) Corresponding author (D. Poinar): E-mail address: poinard@mcmaster.ca |