A jury from Connecticut convicted Richard Dabate of murder in the killing of his wife, Connie Dabate, after a long trial that hinged on data from her Fitbit.
Richard stated that a man dressed in camouflage broke into their home in 2015 and shot Connie.
But Connie wore a Fitbit at the time, and the data from the device showed several movements for around an hour after Richard said the break-in occurred, according to USA Today.
Fitbit Murder Case
To make the case that the Fitbit data helped show Richard killed his wife, the prosecutors called on an exercise physiologist and professor at Columbia University Medical Center, Keith Diaz, according to TechnoBlend.
Diaz has done several studies validating the accuracy of Fitbits and testified about their precision. He often testified as an expert witness in criminal trials.
Diaz told The Verge in an interview that he finds his participation in trials both gratifying and challenging. He said that the way that he thinks about Fitbit data as a scientist is different from the way that he is asked about it in a trial.
Diaz stated that the scientific questions that they are answering in their research are different from the questions in the courtroom. What he does is translate those questions.
According to Diaz, Fitbits data are generally accurate, but they are not 100% reliable. For scientific research, it is rare to get an answer that is 100% certain.
This is because science has some amount of statistical error. But the law operates under different guidelines as it needs to know if something happened beyond a reasonable doubt.
Also Read : FitBit Ionic Smartwatches Pose Dangers to Users Following Overheating Incidents [Report]
Diaz Explains Importance of Fitbit in Murder Case
In an exclusive interview with The Verge, Diaz talked about his experience testifying in trials and how he navigates the tensions between the legal system and science.
When asked about the difference between what a scientist might want to know about a Fitbit and what a jury might need for the trial, Diaz says that for criminal cases, what matters to the jury is if the device detects movement.
The movement itself is good enough for the case and it does not matter if the owner did 100 steps vs. 92 steps in Fitbit, it is all about if the owner moved.
With the Connecticut case, there was a lot of back and forth in the cross-examination about the data's error rate. However, the error rate was on the number of steps someone took and not the error rate of it they were moving.
As for the science part of it, Diaz said that he works with large sample sizes that could have thousands of people. Any noise gets dissipated with several people.
However, with a criminal case, there is only one person, so noise matters and it can bring in some doubt about what really happened.
In criminal cases, there is a level of precision that is needed to be around, like who moved exactly at this certain minute.
Meanwhile in science, if there is an error because of the massive sample size, it can get filtered out. So it has been challenging to figure out how you convey that these type of devices can't tell you perfectly what is happening.
In 2020, Fitbit added features to help detect symptoms of COVID-19.
This article is owned by Tech Times
Written by Sophie Webster
