640,000,000,000 TO 1 [Archive]

paul nutteing

05-22-2004, 07:30 AM

Screams the headline in the mirror (UK national newspaper ).
How come such criminally false figures can be presented in court,
duly reported in the media, totally prejudicing the thinking of any
future jurors faced with DNA so-called 'evidence'.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/allnews/tm_objectid=14257142&method=full&siteid
=50143&headline=640-000-000-000-to-1--name_page.html
or
http://tinyurl.com/ywu9r
Part Quote
640,000,000,000 TO 1

May 20 2004
From Frank Thorne In Darwin

A BLOODSTAIN provided a "640 billion to one" DNA match to the man accused
of killing British tourist Peter Falconio, a court was told yesterday.

It was found on a T-shirt worn by Peter's girlfriend Joanne Lees who
struggled with a gunman in the Australian outback.

Moments earlier she had heard a shot as her boyfriend Peter Falconio and
the man stood at the back of the couple's campervan.

Evidence that 28-year-old Peter was dead was compelling, said prosecutor
Rex Wild QC. That night in July 2001 was the last time Joanne, 30, saw him
alive. His family have not heard from him.

A large patch of blood on the road at Barrow Creek in Northern Territory,
where they were stopped by a scruffy stranger, was his.

The DNA on Joanne's T-shirt matched Bradley Murdoch, 48, who is accused of
murdering Peter, attacking and kidnapping Joanne and using a handgun.

Mr Wild said: "Statistical calculations indicate that this DNA profile is
at least 640 billion times more likely if the blood came from Bradley
Murdoch than from an unrelated person selected at random from the Northern
Territory population."
End Quote.

The following relates to analysis of the UK useage.
Australia NIFS forensic bods apparently use 9 (18
datapoint ) loci , the UK uses 10 (20 datapoint )
so even these results are
on the conservative side for Oz use.

Firstly only a few 10s of million profiles have ever been
determined for humans worldwide. The largest such
database is in the UK and the FSS will not reveal
how many 10 loci matches for different individuals
are already to be found in the UK NDNAD.

For totally randomly generated profiles representing
UK caucasians - which is a pretty mottley lot anyway.
Simulation result - one false match in about 1.8 million profiles.
There is a square law for this sort of process in that
double the size of the database and you quadruple
the number of matches. 10 times the size then a factor
of a hundred.
So 3.6 million is likely to have not 2 but 4 matches.
360 million then 10,000 x 4 = 40,000 matches
36 billion then 400 million matches
640 billion then 126 billion matches ( 252
billion matched individuals ) .

The simplistic square law breaks down before
this as the situation is compounded by triple
matches ,quadruples etc.

Then factor in a measure of relatedness only to the
extent of having caucasian English maternal and paternal
grandparents and the basic false match figure for
such a sub-popultion drops from 1 in 1.8 million to
about 1 in 270,000.
Repeat the database scaling then
540,000 likely to be 4 matches
5,400,000 then 400 matches
54 million then 40,000 matches
5.4 billion then 400 million matches
54 billion then 40 billion matches ( 80 billion
matched individuals ) so you would never
get anywhere near 640 billion.

With only 9 loci profiles then this situation
will occur at much lower figures than this.

For anyone with a few hours to spare and access
to a computer with WORD 97 and visual basic/ macro
handler then you to can prove the 1 in 1.8
million or 1 in 270,000 results to yourself
vb code and macros on
http://www.nutteing2.freeservers.com/dnas5.htm
just copy and paste the code into vb subroutine.

dnas6.htm file for the 1 in 270,000 simulation

or for the archives nutteingd in a search engine

No-one including the USA forensic scientist who bad-
mouthed me has reported back any errors in this
simulation of a large DNA database.

email nonarevers@yahoo.co.....uk (remove 4 of 5 dots)
--
Article posté via l'accès Usenet http://www.mes-news.com
Accès par Nnrp ou Web

Peter Webb

05-22-2004, 08:55 AM

You are assuming that each loci can have only two values, match and no
match. With degrees of match you can make any number. Do you know that it is
as simple as match/no match ?

"paul nutteing" <nutteing@quickfindit....com> wrote in message
news:mW.Hy4DnD.2tF@mes-news.com... Screams the headline in the mirror (UK national newspaper ). How come such criminally false figures can be presented in court, duly reported in the media, totally prejudicing the thinking of any future jurors faced with DNA so-called 'evidence'.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/allnews/tm_objectid=14257142&method=full&siteid =50143&headline=640-000-000-000-to-1--name_page.html or http://tinyurl.com/ywu9r Part Quote 640,000,000,000 TO 1 May 20 2004 From Frank Thorne In Darwin A BLOODSTAIN provided a "640 billion to one" DNA match to the man
accused of killing British tourist Peter Falconio, a court was told yesterday. It was found on a T-shirt worn by Peter's girlfriend Joanne Lees who struggled with a gunman in the Australian outback. Moments earlier she had heard a shot as her boyfriend Peter Falconio and the man stood at the back of the couple's campervan. Evidence that 28-year-old Peter was dead was compelling, said prosecutor Rex Wild QC. That night in July 2001 was the last time Joanne, 30, saw him alive. His family have not heard from him. A large patch of blood on the road at Barrow Creek in Northern Territory, where they were stopped by a scruffy stranger, was his. The DNA on Joanne's T-shirt matched Bradley Murdoch, 48, who is accused of murdering Peter, attacking and kidnapping Joanne and using a handgun. Mr Wild said: "Statistical calculations indicate that this DNA profile is at least 640 billion times more likely if the blood came from Bradley Murdoch than from an unrelated person selected at random from the Northern Territory population." End Quote. The following relates to analysis of the UK useage. Australia NIFS forensic bods apparently use 9 (18 datapoint ) loci , the UK uses 10 (20 datapoint ) so even these results are on the conservative side for Oz use. Firstly only a few 10s of million profiles have ever been determined for humans worldwide. The largest such database is in the UK and the FSS will not reveal how many 10 loci matches for different individuals are already to be found in the UK NDNAD. For totally randomly generated profiles representing UK caucasians - which is a pretty mottley lot anyway. Simulation result - one false match in about 1.8 million profiles. There is a square law for this sort of process in that double the size of the database and you quadruple the number of matches. 10 times the size then a factor of a hundred. So 3.6 million is likely to have not 2 but 4 matches. 360 million then 10,000 x 4 = 40,000 matches 36 billion then 400 million matches 640 billion then 126 billion matches ( 252 billion matched individuals ) . The simplistic square law breaks down before this as the situation is compounded by triple matches ,quadruples etc. Then factor in a measure of relatedness only to the extent of having caucasian English maternal and paternal grandparents and the basic false match figure for such a sub-popultion drops from 1 in 1.8 million to about 1 in 270,000. Repeat the database scaling then 540,000 likely to be 4 matches 5,400,000 then 400 matches 54 million then 40,000 matches 5.4 billion then 400 million matches 54 billion then 40 billion matches ( 80 billion matched individuals ) so you would never get anywhere near 640 billion. With only 9 loci profiles then this situation will occur at much lower figures than this. For anyone with a few hours to spare and access to a computer with WORD 97 and visual basic/ macro handler then you to can prove the 1 in 1.8 million or 1 in 270,000 results to yourself vb code and macros on http://www.nutteing2.freeservers.com/dnas5.htm just copy and paste the code into vb subroutine. dnas6.htm file for the 1 in 270,000 simulation or for the archives nutteingd in a search engine No-one including the USA forensic scientist who bad- mouthed me has reported back any errors in this simulation of a large DNA database. email nonarevers@yahoo.co.....uk (remove 4 of 5 dots) -- Article posté via l'accès Usenet http://www.mes-news.com Accès par Nnrp ou Web

Paul Nutteing

05-22-2004, 10:54 AM

"Peter Webb" <wabbfamilyDIESPAMDIE@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:40af77e6$0$3036$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au ... You are assuming that each loci can have only two values, match and no match. With degrees of match you can make any number. Do you know that it
is as simple as match/no match ?

My criterion for 2 matching SGM + profiles
for loci
vWA,THO1,D8,FGA,D2,D18,D2,D16,D19,D3

actual example of a match from a simulation was
(17,17)(7,9.3)(12,13)(20,23)(28,30)(15,16)(18,24)( 12,12)(13,14)(14,14)
and
(17,17)(7,9.3)(12,13)(20,23)(28,30)(15,16)(18,24)( 12,12)(13,14)(14,14)

and cross-checking with the original generation file
to confirm that it was not a manifest of the random number
generator 'calling' the same numbers twice.

What they aren't telling you about DNA profiles
and what Special Branch don't want you to know.
http://www.nutteing2.freeservers.com/dnapr.htm
or nutteingd in a search engine

email nonarevers@yahoo.co.....uk (remove 4 of 5 dots)

Anon Poster

05-22-2004, 11:09 AM

Ernest

05-22-2004, 11:46 AM

On 22 May 2004 14:30:49 +0000, paul nutteing
<nutteing@quickfindit....com> wrote:
Screams the headline in the mirror (UK national newspaper ).How come such criminally false figures can be presented in court,duly reported in the media, totally prejudicing the thinking of anyfuture jurors faced with DNA so-called 'evidence'.http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/allnews/tm_objectid=14257142&method=full&siteid=50143&headline=640-000-000-000-to-1--name_page.htmlorhttp://tinyurl.com/ywu9rPart Quote640,000,000,000 TO 1May 20 2004From Frank Thorne In Darwin A BLOODSTAIN provided a "640 billion to one" DNA match to the man accusedof killing British tourist Peter Falconio, a court was told yesterday.It was found on a T-shirt worn by Peter's girlfriend Joanne Lees whostruggled with a gunman in the Australian outback.Moments earlier she had heard a shot as her boyfriend Peter Falconio andthe man stood at the back of the couple's campervan.Evidence that 28-year-old Peter was dead was compelling, said prosecutorRex Wild QC. That night in July 2001 was the last time Joanne, 30, saw himalive. His family have not heard from him.A large patch of blood on the road at Barrow Creek in Northern Territory,where they were stopped by a scruffy stranger, was his.The DNA on Joanne's T-shirt matched Bradley Murdoch, 48, who is accused ofmurdering Peter, attacking and kidnapping Joanne and using a handgun.Mr Wild said: "Statistical calculations indicate that this DNA profile isat least 640 billion times more likely if the blood came from BradleyMurdoch than from an unrelated person selected at random from the NorthernTerritory population."End Quote.The following relates to analysis of the UK useage.Australia NIFS forensic bods apparently use 9 (18datapoint ) loci , the UK uses 10 (20 datapoint )so even these results areon the conservative side for Oz use.Firstly only a few 10s of million profiles have ever beendetermined for humans worldwide. The largest suchdatabase is in the UK and the FSS will not revealhow many 10 loci matches for different individualsare already to be found in the UK NDNAD.For totally randomly generated profiles representingUK caucasians - which is a pretty mottley lot anyway.Simulation result - one false match in about 1.8 million profiles.There is a square law for this sort of process in thatdouble the size of the database and you quadruplethe number of matches. 10 times the size then a factorof a hundred.So 3.6 million is likely to have not 2 but 4 matches.360 million then 10,000 x 4 = 40,000 matches36 billion then 400 million matches640 billion then 126 billion matches ( 252billion matched individuals ) .The simplistic square law breaks down beforethis as the situation is compounded by triplematches ,quadruples etc.Then factor in a measure of relatedness only to theextent of having caucasian English maternal and paternalgrandparents and the basic false match figure forsuch a sub-popultion drops from 1 in 1.8 million toabout 1 in 270,000.Repeat the database scaling then540,000 likely to be 4 matches5,400,000 then 400 matches54 million then 40,000 matches5.4 billion then 400 million matches54 billion then 40 billion matches ( 80 billionmatched individuals ) so you would neverget anywhere near 640 billion.With only 9 loci profiles then this situationwill occur at much lower figures than this.For anyone with a few hours to spare and accessto a computer with WORD 97 and visual basic/ macrohandler then you to can prove the 1 in 1.8million or 1 in 270,000 results to yourselfvb code and macros onhttp://www.nutteing2.freeservers.com/dnas5.htmjust copy and paste the code into vb subroutine.dnas6.htm file for the 1 in 270,000 simulationor for the archives nutteingd in a search engineNo-one including the USA forensic scientist who bad-mouthed me has reported back any errors in thissimulation of a large DNA database.email nonarevers@yahoo.co.....uk (remove 4 of 5 dots)

I have seen this figure calculated out in a previous
article, think it was to do with the OJ Simpson case,
but basicly if you take ALL the possible DNA options
and multiply them out you get a figure that rounds
down to 640 billion. The reality is that they do NOT
check every possible site; and that people from close
gene pools will have a number of common sites, thus
the ability to identify genetic heritage.

The frightening things is that the two most common
levels of DNA testing used in criminal cases will give
a clear difference between strangers but can return
a match for people who are closely related. An example
being that the standard test can show a match between
my father, my borther, my son, and myself; the level
of match will depend upon the sites chosen and what
is at those sites.

Deadly Ernest

@bywater.net.au

(my new keyboard, with small keys,
accepts full responsibility for all
typographical and spelling errors)

Paul Nutteing

05-22-2004, 12:08 PM

I have seen this figure calculated out in a previous article, think it was to do with the OJ Simpson case, but basicly if you take ALL the possible DNA options and multiply them out you get a figure that rounds down to 640 billion. The reality is that they do NOT check every possible site; and that people from close gene pools will have a number of common sites, thus the ability to identify genetic heritage. The frightening things is that the two most common levels of DNA testing used in criminal cases will give a clear difference between strangers but can return a match for people who are closely related. An example being that the standard test can show a match between my father, my borther, my son, and myself; the level of match will depend upon the sites chosen and what is at those sites. Deadly Ernest @bywater.net.au (my new keyboard, with small keys, accepts full responsibility for all typographical and spelling errors)

The key phrase is allele frequency.
For USA / CODIS considering locus D16S539
then 66 percent of Afro-Americans have at
least one allele 11 at that locus
and 70 percent of caucasians have at
least one allele 12 at D16.
Not very discriminating.
Data from RCMP site for allele frequencies.
http://www.csfs.ca/databases/index.htm

What they aren't telling you about DNA profiles
and what Special Branch don't want you to know.
http://www.nutteing2.freeservers.com/dnapr.htm
or nutteingd in a search engine

email nonarevers@yahoo.co.....uk (remove 4 of 5 dots)

Jonathan Bryce

05-22-2004, 12:47 PM

Peter Webb wrote:
You are assuming that each loci can have only two values, match and no match. With degrees of match you can make any number. Do you know that it is as simple as match/no match ?

Well either the DNA is exactly the same, or it isn't. Even if it is almost
the same, it is still a different person, but possibly a close relative.

JustEd

05-22-2004, 04:34 PM

Ernest <deadly1@bywaterDE1SPAM.net.au> wrote in message news:<0n7va09iu5houl3hdgf3t3bvm5rlbi8u72@4ax.com>... On 22 May 2004 14:30:49 +0000, paul nutteing <nutteing@quickfindit....com> wrote:
The frightening things is that the two most common levels of DNA testing used in criminal cases will give a clear difference between strangers but can return a match for people who are closely related.

So why is that frightening? Is that because you are thinking... what if? It was me?

Now that's THINKING, Deadly Ernest @bywater.net.au (my new keyboard, with small keys, accepts full responsibility for all typographical and spelling errors)

Ernest

05-22-2004, 11:04 PM

On 22 May 2004 16:34:50 -0700, inffogenius@hotmail.com (JustEd) wrote:
Ernest <deadly1@bywaterDE1SPAM.net.au> wrote in message news:<0n7va09iu5houl3hdgf3t3bvm5rlbi8u72@4ax.com>... On 22 May 2004 14:30:49 +0000, paul nutteing <nutteing@quickfindit....com> wrote: The frightening things is that the two most common levels of DNA testing used in criminal cases will give a clear difference between strangers but can return a match for people who are closely related.So why is that frightening? Is that because you are thinking... what if? It was me?
It is frightening that someone can be convicted
on evidence that just as trongly points to another
person. A case that may be relevant is the OJ
Simpson one, some evidence at the time made
OJ's son a more likely suspect than OJ but it
was not followed up closely. The DNA tests
done could just as easily have proven his son
as guilty as they claimed OJ was. But a more
expensive, longer and more detailled test
would have been much more accurate, yet
they are rarely go to that detail.

They should do a basic test for initial exams
and then if they match do a full test, this
double testing is what some of the top specialists
have been recommending from the start, but
few law enforcement agencies are prepared
to pay the higher cost for such exact testing.
Now that's THINKING,

How would you like to be convicted on
DNA for a crime by your first cousin?
Deadly Ernest @bywater.net.au (my new keyboard, with small keys, accepts full responsibility for all typographical and spelling errors)

Deadly Ernest

@bywater.net.au

(my new keyboard, with small keys,
accepts full responsibility for all
typographical and spelling errors)

Ernest

05-22-2004, 11:07 PM

On Sat, 22 May 2004 20:47:05 +0100, Jonathan Bryce
<jonathan@localhost.localdomain> wrote:
Peter Webb wrote: You are assuming that each loci can have only two values, match and no match. With degrees of match you can make any number. Do you know that it is as simple as match/no match ?Well either the DNA is exactly the same, or it isn't. Even if it is almostthe same, it is still a different person, but possibly a close relative.

I forget the exact numbers but the common test
check only a few percent of the total. Do a full
spectrum test and you will have an exact match
or a part match meaning a non-match. But test
only 10% and you may get a match on the only
10% that does match, add another site and it
may not match. It is the partial testing process,
dictated by costs and time, that are of concern
to some people.

Deadly Ernest

@bywater.net.au

(my new keyboard, with small keys,
accepts full responsibility for all
typographical and spelling errors)

Rodney Pace

05-22-2004, 11:35 PM

Richard Henry

05-23-2004, 12:31 AM

"Rod Pace" <rodney_pace@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:40b04735@quokka.wn.com.au... "Ernest" <deadly1@bywaterDE1SPAM.net.au> wrote in message news:lff0b0ppvuckceg28ca76f5hnjbtfjoqtg@4ax.com...
It is frightening that someone can be convicted on evidence that just as trongly points to another person. A case that may be relevant is the OJ Simpson one, some evidence at the time made OJ's son a more likely suspect than OJ but it was not followed up closely. The DNA tests done could just as easily have proven his son as guilty as they claimed OJ was. But a more expensive, longer and more detailled test would have been much more accurate, yet they are rarely go to that detail. Bull****.

That's not an argument, it's just contradiction.

Crude contradiction, at that.

Rodney Pace

05-23-2004, 12:52 AM

Some terminal idiot desperately hiding behind
"Richard Henry" <rphenry@home.com> wrote in message
news:rrYrc.17024$PU5.13071@fed1read06...
just the same puerile excuse for bull**** that's always pouring from the
back of it.
That's not an argument, it's just contradiction. Crude contradiction, at that.

You will always be completely and utterly irrelevant.

What you may or may not think is 'crude' in spades.

Paul Nutteing

05-23-2004, 01:36 AM

"Ernest" <deadly1@bywaterDE1SPAM.net.au> wrote in message
news:lff0b0ppvuckceg28ca76f5hnjbtfjoqtg@4ax.com... On 22 May 2004 16:34:50 -0700, inffogenius@hotmail.com (JustEd) wrote:Ernest <deadly1@bywaterDE1SPAM.net.au> wrote in message
news:<0n7va09iu5houl3hdgf3t3bvm5rlbi8u72@4ax.com>... On 22 May 2004 14:30:49 +0000, paul nutteing <nutteing@quickfindit....com> wrote: The frightening things is that the two most common levels of DNA testing used in criminal cases will give a clear difference between strangers but can return a match for people who are closely related.So why is that frightening? Is that because you are thinking... what if?
It was me? It is frightening that someone can be convicted on evidence that just as trongly points to another person. A case that may be relevant is the OJ Simpson one, some evidence at the time made OJ's son a more likely suspect than OJ but it was not followed up closely. The DNA tests done could just as easily have proven his son as guilty as they claimed OJ was. But a more expensive, longer and more detailled test would have been much more accurate, yet they are rarely go to that detail. They should do a basic test for initial exams and then if they match do a full test, this double testing is what some of the top specialists have been recommending from the start, but few law enforcement agencies are prepared to pay the higher cost for such exact testing.Now that's THINKING, How would you like to be convicted on DNA for a crime by your first cousin? Deadly Ernest @bywater.net.au (my new keyboard, with small keys, accepts full responsibility for all typographical and spelling errors) Deadly Ernest @bywater.net.au (my new keyboard, with small keys, accepts full responsibility for all typographical and spelling errors)

The probability of two brothers having the same
10 loci DNA profile is not that high.
The general case about 1 match in 30,000
and with an ancestral history the norm for
that general population then about 1 in 600.
Remember on each locus you are in effect
perming 2 from 4 in each child ( 1 of 2 from mother
and 1 of 2 from the father ).
Much the same shuffling 2 from 4 for father and son
matches.
If both parents are closely related ( incestuous) then
that brings the numbers down.
..

What they aren't telling you about DNA profiles
and what Special Branch don't want you to know.
http://www.nutteing2.freeservers.com/dnapr.htm
or nutteingd in a search engine

email nonarevers@yahoo.co.....uk (remove 4 of 5 dots)

JustEd

05-23-2004, 05:26 AM

Ernest <deadly1@bywaterDE1SPAM.net.au> wrote in message news:<lff0b0ppvuckceg28ca76f5hnjbtfjoqtg@4ax.com>... On 22 May 2004 16:34:50 -0700, inffogenius@hotmail.com (JustEd) wrote:Ernest <deadly1@bywaterDE1SPAM.net.au> wrote in message news:<0n7va09iu5houl3hdgf3t3bvm5rlbi8u72@4ax.com>... On 22 May 2004 14:30:49 +0000, paul nutteing <nutteing@quickfindit....com> wrote:

So why is that frightening? Is that because you are thinking... what if? It was me? It is frightening that someone can be convicted on evidence that just as trongly points to another person.Now that's THINKING,

Or imprisoned without conviction Ernie...
How would you like to be convicted on DNA for a crime by your first cousin?

I would not like it one bit - but you and I have a brother in Cuba
whose DNA is irrelevant, imprisoned without trial...

Ernie, this is no different for David Hicks... I don't know the guy,
but I know justice and this is not it... think about it..

Deadly Ernest @bywater.net.au (my new keyboard, with small keys, accepts full responsibility for all typographical and spelling errors) Deadly Ernest @bywater.net.au (my new keyboard, with small keys, accepts full responsibility for all typographical and spelling errors)

JustEd

05-23-2004, 05:31 AM

"Rod Pace" <rodney_pace@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<40b04735@quokka.wn.com.au>... "Ernest" <deadly1@bywaterDE1SPAM.net.au> wrote in message news:lff0b0ppvuckceg28ca76f5hnjbtfjoqtg@4ax.com... On 22 May 2004 16:34:50 -0700, inffogenius@hotmail.com (JustEd) wrote:Ernest <deadly1@bywaterDE1SPAM.net.au> wrote in message news:<0n7va09iu5houl3hdgf3t3bvm5rlbi8u72@4ax.com>...> On 22 May 2004 14:30:49 +0000, paul nutteing> <nutteing@quickfindit....com> wrote:>> The frightening things is that the two most common> levels of DNA testing used in criminal cases will give> a clear difference between strangers but can return> a match for people who are closely related.So why is that frightening? Is that because you are thinking... what if? It was me? It is frightening that someone can be convicted on evidence that just as trongly points to another person. A case that may be relevant is the OJ Simpson one, some evidence at the time made OJ's son a more likely suspect than OJ but it was not followed up closely. The DNA tests done could just as easily have proven his son as guilty as they claimed OJ was. But a more expensive, longer and more detailled test would have been much more accurate, yet they are rarely go to that detail. Bull****.

Oh you're so clever with those words...
They should do a basic test for initial exams and then if they match do a full test, this double testing is what some of the top specialists have been recommending from the start, but few law enforcement agencies are prepared to pay the higher cost for such exact testing.Now that's THINKING, How would you like to be convicted on DNA for a crime by your first cousin?>>> Deadly Ernest>> @bywater.net.au Pathetic, really.

You should work on your self-esteem...

Ernest

05-23-2004, 05:37 AM

On Sun, 23 May 2004 00:31:33 -0700, "Richard Henry" <rphenry@home.com>
wrote:
"Rod Pace" <rodney_pace@yahoo.com> wrote in messagenews:40b04735@quokka.wn.com.au... "Ernest" <deadly1@bywaterDE1SPAM.net.au> wrote in message news:lff0b0ppvuckceg28ca76f5hnjbtfjoqtg@4ax.com... It is frightening that someone can be convicted on evidence that just as trongly points to another person. A case that may be relevant is the OJ Simpson one, some evidence at the time made OJ's son a more likely suspect than OJ but it was not followed up closely. The DNA tests done could just as easily have proven his son as guilty as they claimed OJ was. But a more expensive, longer and more detailled test would have been much more accurate, yet they are rarely go to that detail. Bull****.That's not an argument, it's just contradiction.Crude contradiction, at that.
True, but typical of Rod, and about as far as he
usually goes.

Deadly Ernest

@bywater.net.au

(my new keyboard, with small keys,
accepts full responsibility for all
typographical and spelling errors)

Ernest

05-23-2004, 01:08 PM

On 23 May 2004 05:26:15 -0700, inffogenius@hotmail.com (JustEd) wrote:
Ernest <deadly1@bywaterDE1SPAM.net.au> wrote in message news:<lff0b0ppvuckceg28ca76f5hnjbtfjoqtg@4ax.com>... On 22 May 2004 16:34:50 -0700, inffogenius@hotmail.com (JustEd) wrote:Ernest <deadly1@bywaterDE1SPAM.net.au> wrote in message news:<0n7va09iu5houl3hdgf3t3bvm5rlbi8u72@4ax.com>...> On 22 May 2004 14:30:49 +0000, paul nutteing> <nutteing@quickfindit....com> wrote:So why is that frightening? Is that because you are thinking... what if? It was me? It is frightening that someone can be convicted on evidence that just as trongly points to another person.Now that's THINKING,Or imprisoned without conviction Ernie... How would you like to be convicted on DNA for a crime by your first cousin?I would not like it one bit - but you and I have a brother in Cubawhose DNA is irrelevant, imprisoned without trial...Ernie, this is no different for David Hicks... I don't know the guy,but I know justice and this is not it... think about it..
Many people the world over, including Australia,
are kept in prison whilst the matter is under
investigation and awaiting trial.

From the statements that he has made he has
committed the actions for which he was
apprehended, he is being dealt with within
the lawful terms of the relevant laws that he
was apprehended under. The fact that those
terms are different to our criminal law terms
is irrelevant to the case, we can not enforce
our criminal law requirements on another
country or cases under other sets of laws.
We can not even enforce them on civil law
cases within Australia.
>>> Deadly Ernest>> @bywater.net.au>> (my new keyboard, with small keys,> accepts full responsibility for all> typographical and spelling errors) Deadly Ernest @bywater.net.au (my new keyboard, with small keys, accepts full responsibility for all typographical and spelling errors)

Deadly Ernest

@bywater.net.au

(my new keyboard, with small keys,
accepts full responsibility for all
typographical and spelling errors)

JustEd

05-23-2004, 09:15 PM

Ernest <deadly1@bywaterDE1SPAM.net.au> wrote in message news:<3v02b0tcr04ims6a8hm8jvks7qqf26qem7@4ax.com>... On 23 May 2004 05:26:15 -0700, inffogenius@hotmail.com (JustEd) wrote:Ernest <deadly1@bywaterDE1SPAM.net.au> wrote in message news:<lff0b0ppvuckceg28ca76f5hnjbtfjoqtg@4ax.com>... On 22 May 2004 16:34:50 -0700, inffogenius@hotmail.com (JustEd) wrote: >Ernest <deadly1@bywaterDE1SPAM.net.au> wrote in message news:<0n7va09iu5houl3hdgf3t3bvm5rlbi8u72@4ax.com>... >> On 22 May 2004 14:30:49 +0000, paul nutteing >> <nutteing@quickfindit....com> wrote: >So why is that frightening? Is that because you are thinking... what if? It was me? > It is frightening that someone can be convicted on evidence that just as trongly points to another person. >Now that's THINKING,Or imprisoned without conviction Ernie... How would you like to be convicted on DNA for a crime by your first cousin?I would not like it one bit - but you and I have a brother in Cubawhose DNA is irrelevant, imprisoned without trial...Ernie, this is no different for David Hicks... I don't know the guy,but I know justice and this is not it... think about it.. Many people the world over, including Australia, are kept in prison whilst the matter is under investigation and awaiting trial. From the statements that he has made

under duress?

he has committed the actions for which he was apprehended, he is being dealt with within the lawful terms of the relevant laws that he was apprehended under.

That's under the Geneva convention?

How come the Brits are free...

We just don't care about humanity and justice -

The fact that those terms are different to our criminal law terms is irrelevant to the case, we can not enforce our criminal law requirements on another country or cases under other sets of laws. We can not even enforce them on civil law cases within Australia. >> >> >> Deadly Ernest >> >> @bywater.net.au >> >> (my new keyboard, with small keys, >> accepts full responsibility for all >> typographical and spelling errors) Deadly Ernest @bywater.net.au (my new keyboard, with small keys, accepts full responsibility for all typographical and spelling errors) Deadly Ernest @bywater.net.au (my new keyboard, with small keys, accepts full responsibility for all typographical and spelling errors)

Ernest

05-23-2004, 10:20 PM

On 23 May 2004 21:15:52 -0700, inffogenius@hotmail.com (JustEd) wrote:
Ernest <deadly1@bywaterDE1SPAM.net.au> wrote in message news:<3v02b0tcr04ims6a8hm8jvks7qqf26qem7@4ax.com>... On 23 May 2004 05:26:15 -0700, inffogenius@hotmail.com (JustEd) wrote:Ernest <deadly1@bywaterDE1SPAM.net.au> wrote in message news:<lff0b0ppvuckceg28ca76f5hnjbtfjoqtg@4ax.com>...> On 22 May 2004 16:34:50 -0700, inffogenius@hotmail.com (JustEd) wrote:>> >Ernest <deadly1@bywaterDE1SPAM.net.au> wrote in message news:<0n7va09iu5houl3hdgf3t3bvm5rlbi8u72@4ax.com>...> >> On 22 May 2004 14:30:49 +0000, paul nutteing> >> <nutteing@quickfindit....com> wrote:> >So why is that frightening? Is that because you are thinking... what if? It was me?> >> It is frightening that someone can be convicted> on evidence that just as trongly points to another> person.> >Now that's THINKING,Or imprisoned without conviction Ernie...>> How would you like to be convicted on> DNA for a crime by your first cousin?I would not like it one bit - but you and I have a brother in Cubawhose DNA is irrelevant, imprisoned without trial...Ernie, this is no different for David Hicks... I don't know the guy,but I know justice and this is not it... think about it.. Many people the world over, including Australia, are kept in prison whilst the matter is under investigation and awaiting trial. From the statements that he has madeunder duress?
Are you now saying that the statements
that he released through his attorney
were false and made under duress. Are
you also saying that the statements he
made in Australia before going over to
Afghanistan were made under duress.
he has committed the actions for which he was apprehended, he is being dealt with within the lawful terms of the relevant laws that he was apprehended under.That's under the Geneva convention?How come the Brits are free...
because the yanks have finished interrogating
them. Funny thing when you have several
tasks to do you do them one at a time, with
a number of interrogations you concentrate on
a couple at a time, as you finish them you
release the person, or do waht you intend to
do with them. Then you start on the next
few and the rest just wait their turn.
We just don't care about humanity and justice -The fact that those terms are different to our criminal law terms is irrelevant to the case, we can not enforce our criminal law requirements on another country or cases under other sets of laws. We can not even enforce them on civil law cases within Australia.>> >>> >>> >> Deadly Ernest> >>> >> @bywater.net.au> >>> >> (my new keyboard, with small keys,> >> accepts full responsibility for all> >> typographical and spelling errors)>> Deadly Ernest>> @bywater.net.au>> (my new keyboard, with small keys,> accepts full responsibility for all> typographical and spelling errors) Deadly Ernest @bywater.net.au (my new keyboard, with small keys, accepts full responsibility for all typographical and spelling errors)

Deadly Ernest

@bywater.net.au

(my new keyboard, with small keys,
accepts full responsibility for all
typographical and spelling errors)

Acid Pooh

05-26-2004, 08:27 PM

Jonathan Bryce <jonathan@localhost.localdomain> wrote in message news:<1085255021.91758@news01.eclipse.net.uk>... Peter Webb wrote: You are assuming that each loci can have only two values, match and no match. With degrees of match you can make any number. Do you know that it is as simple as match/no match ? Well either the DNA is exactly the same, or it isn't. Even if it is almost the same, it is still a different person, but possibly a close relative.

Not true. We all have several versions in our bodies all the time.
Most mutations are minor, and will be repaired. But some minor
mutations are not repaired. Cancer cells are an example of non-minor
mutations (they affect the cell's metabolism/reproduction)

Point is: this is a popular misconception that has no place in a
court room.

'cid 'ooh

Paul Nutteing

05-28-2004, 12:20 PM

"michael" <copsR@yourdoor.com> wrote in message
news:40b74e5f_1@news.iprimus.com.au... "Paul Nutteing" <nutteing@quickfindit.com> reveals: This smh article turned up on The Archive, expunged from their own
<http://web.archive.org/web/20001025074133/http://www.smh.com.au/news/0004/2 2/text/review8.html> Yeah, I was the unnamed 'Justice Action' spokesman Linda Doherty quoted in that article (I also gave her the info on the NZ case and several others that she declined to mention - including Raymond Easton, which she refused to believe as it hadn't appeared in any official reports at that time). It started me thinking if there is a 7 loci/14 datapoint match in 5,500 profiles - how many 10 loci / 20 point matches are likely in 2 million profiles. Don't forget it was 14 out of 18 - which is far more likely than 14 out of 14. Pretty sure Chaseling was referring to the early stages of data collection for what was to be published as "Analysis of Australian Profiler Plus Data" (see email below). She was also wrong when she said that the Red Cross donors were 'informed'. They knew nothing about what was to be done with their blood. (see http://tinyurl.com/3bmno & http://tinyurl.com/2wrz4 ) Alastair's insistence that 'a new sample' will be taken before an investigative cold hit is used as court evidence is pretty meaningless of course. The errors almost always occur during the handling or analysis of crime scene samples - not those taken from suspects - and even if there is sufficient material for multiple tests, contaminated results will often be eminently reproducible (as was the case in the VFSC and ESR contaminations). His assurances regarding the accreditation procedure is best judged by reference to the Jaidyn Leskie debacle at the fully accredited VFSC labs (the ESR lab was also accredited when its contamination scandal occured). And the NT forensic lab that tested the samples in the Falconio case is not accredited at all. michael -------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "michael" Sent: Monday, November 25, 2002 10:21 PM Subject: Analysis of Australian Profiler Plus Data Hi All, Recently received a pre-print Sept 2002 copy of "Analysis of Australian Profiler Plus Data" by Bruce Weir, Aleksander Bagdonavicius, Barry Blair, Carmen Eckhoff, Christopher Pearman, Peta Stringer, Julie Sutton, Laszlo Szabo and John West. As seems to be traditional in this kind of paper it makes consistent claims of statistical conservatism throughout while actually adopting several presumptions which serve to totally over-ride and reverse those measures in practice. 14,763 9 loci Profiler Plus profiles from across all Australian jurisdictions are checked against each other for a total of 108,965,703 pairwise comparisons. Some interesting things which emerge include are 13 pairs matching at 7 loci of which 8 partially matched at one other locus and 5 partially match at the two other loci (for a total of 16 out of 18 points - or a 'hit' according to default Crimtrac matching criteria, which can be overridden by participating jurisdictions of course). The paper notes that 28 fully matching 9 loci pairs were initially discovered but that one of these was between identical twins and the other 27 attributed to the same person giving samples in two jurisdictions. It is not clear what method was used to determine that 27 were duplicates but it is interesting to note that no duplicates were noted *within* jurisdictions - which seems to indicate that some method is used by each participating database to eliminate them. Two pairs of profiles were found to match at all except one allele (i.e. 8 full loci + 1 partial). One of these seems to have resulted from differing allele designations for D21 between participating labs and the other one was written off as either the same contributor + lab error (i.e. 'very similar names' and a subsequent retest showed the same profile) or a 'rare event'. The possibility of an error detected in this way is then used to claim an overall lab error rate for the samples of one in 29,526 - although there is no suggestion in the article that any other samples were retested (no point in searching for what you don't want to find I guess). It is also claimed that 'cold hits' would always result in such a
retest, although this presumes that there is enough crime stain left for such a test and that the error wasn't systematic and repeatable (e.g. dropout due to binding site mutation or polymer contamination of crime stain). It also presumes that all databases adopt such a policy (Crimtrac, for instance, would not normally have access to state based samples for such a retest and would have to leave it up to participating
jurisdictions to work it out themselves). Incredibly, the authors suggest that based on the data observed, a nine loci 'match by chance' should only be expected as the dataset approaches 600,000 profiles. This would give a discrimination for Profiler Plus of about 180 billion to one - higher than is usually given using the product rule for profiles from unrelated individuals. They also say that 100,000 samples should be expected before an 8 loci match is observed - even though their data suggests that they have probably found at least one with less than 15,000 samples. If anyone has any idea as to what kind of maths they used to reach these conclusions I would appreciate enlightenment as they do not let on in the article - but it would seem that they certainly do not
feel the need to consider siblings or other close or inbred rellies. The clear aim of the article is (yet again) to try to make the case that there is little difference between allele distribution found in Australian and US samples and that subpopulation variations in frequencies and departures from H-W and LE can be adequately compensated for by using relatively modest theta values (<=0.03) plugged into NRC-II equation 4.10. (But don't hold your breath waiting for the contributors to abandon raw product rule calculations in the labs they work in). This is achieved by using very gross binning for subpopulations (i.e. 'Asians' [from Istanbul to Irian Jaya], 'Aborigines' and 'Caucasians' from each state) to smooth out the actual variations between the smaller groups likely to constitute a 'suspect pool' for a given 'cold hit' investigation. cheers, michael

I would like to find somewhere what , if any ,
correlation there is between theta values and the
spread of allele frequencies for different population
diversity.

I've looked at my results for 10 loci simulations
and scaled them for the Oz 9 loci situation.
For absolutely no relatedness I would expect
on 9 loci / 18 datapoint one match in 940,000.
Factoring in >= 8 per cent allele frequency
for relatedness then for 9 loci
1 in 60,000.
If you allow any 8 matching pairs, and that is
any 8 pairs ie no specific order, and one pair of alleles matching
in the remaining 2 pairs of alleles ( 17 datapoint )
then you can reduce these (60,000 to 940,000 figures ) by a factor of 30 to
50.

No one , (apparently ) investigates these unrelated
matches in DNA databases. It is very easy to cross-correlate
mug-shots or even better friction ridge fingerprint data
to rule out genuine repeats of one individual.
The FBI deletes any matches from any data they
pass on to academe because it is OBVIOUSLY
erroneous.

I go back to my MP next week to try and get the
number of 6 and 10 loci matches in the arrestee
side of the UK NDNAD written into Hansard.
Pigs might fly

What they aren't telling you about DNA profiles
and what Special Branch don't want you to know.
http://www.nutteing2.freeservers.com/dnapr.htm
or nutteingd in a search engine

email nonarevers@yahoo.co.....uk (remove 4 of 5 dots)

Paul Nutteing

05-29-2004, 01:54 AM

"michael" <copsR@yourdoor.com> wrote in message
news:40b82181_1@news.iprimus.com.au... "Paul Nutteing" <nutteing@quickfindit.com> asks: I would like to find somewhere what , if any , correlation there is between theta values and the spread of allele frequencies for different population diversity. How long is a piece of string? Theta (or FST) values are just constants used to try to incorporate what is known or assumed about population substructure into match odd calcs. Some common examples used are 0.01 for Caucasians in Aus, 0.02 for African Americans, 0.03 for Native Americans. They are really pretty arbitrary and, as I noted in the comments on 'Aus PP data' it depends on how closely you look at the structure. So using 0.03 might be enough to cover the overall difference in allele frequencies between, say, all Aboriginal Australians in NSW and all Aboriginal Australians in Victoria but the differences in observed frequencies between all Aboriginal Australians in and around Wagga (a NSW town) and in Brewarrina (another NSW town) may be more signficant. A parallel might be if you compared the frequency of blue eyes between Europe and North America you might expect outcomes more similar than if you compare Northern Europe with Southern Europe. Prosecution aligned forensic scientists in Aus always use comparisons between states to argue that there is little substructuring in Aus populations. But of course states are arbitrary divisions of population that are unlikely to reflect substructuring to the degree that target populations in a given criminal investigation will (potential suspects are more typically from a particular town or suburb than distributed homogenously across a state). So theta values used in Aus match odds calcs are almost always gross underestimates of the true substructuring relevant to a particular investigation (e.g. A Vietnamese-Australian from Cabramatta is far more likely to share alleles with another randomly selected V-A from Cabra than a randomly selected 'NSW Asian'). So the bottom line is, theta is estimated based on observed frequencies, but the estimate you get will be highly dependant on *which* frequencies you observe. Make the population sets (bins) large and arbitrary enough and you can get very small theta values and then pretend that the moderate value you use in the calcs is 'conservative'. Factoring in >= 8 per cent allele frequency for relatedness then for 9 loci Thats a theta of 0.08. Most published forensic scientists would reject anything near that high (e.g. there is some argument over whether theta for Aboriginal Australians should be 0.03 or 0.05 - in spite of the fact that they are likely to be one of the most substructured populations in the world). On the other hand, population geneticists trying to deduce prehistoric migrations from allele distributions routinely use theta values >0.10 and a Kolkhata based forensic scientist tells me that even thetas of 0.15 and higher fail to incorporate freq differences between different endogamous Indian groups who prefer to inmarry (e.g. Hindu subcastes). The FBI deletes any matches from any data they pass on to academe because it is OBVIOUSLY erroneous. Yeah, Amanda Sozer gives the game away a bit with her assumptions about matching CODIS profiles. from http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij/dnamtgtrans3/trans-h.html In Florida they say it's about 10 percent that they duplicate their samples, and 2 percent of those samples -- when the samples coming into the lab they look for duplicates. 2 percent get by. They have a different corrections number, they have a different name, they have a different Social Security Number, they have a different date of birth. ... but the labs and dB managers still assume that they are really the same person because their profiles match. Similar to the 27 out of 14,763 Profiler Plus (9 loci) matches observed in the Aus data - they have the same profile so they *must* be the same person, even if all of their other details are different. michael

I agree 8 % seems high.
I settled on 8 percent just because , much to my
surprise , none of my alleles are rarer than 8 per cent
but I don't consider my background to be in anyway
autochthonous.
My genetic background is 2 grandparents from
one English county and 2 grandparents from another
English county. Not a rare inheritance for England.
But is that the norm for England or just a statistical
blip, you would think that sort of info was available somewhere.
What I would like to see is a breakdown of
a few hundred people's multi-loci profiles in terms of
spread of allele frequencies ( which would retain
anonymity ) who profess (can't allow for bar sinistere /
wrong side of the blankets, history ) to
have say four-fourths majority background population inheritance.
Ranging from a settled , autochthonous, isolated
community in some rural backwoods through all
4 gparents from one town , 4 gparents from one county
etc through to a metropolitan area.

Have you considered contributing to the forensic
science group ?
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/forensic-science/messages
where perhaps half th ebods are serving forensic
scientists.

What they aren't telling you about DNA profiles
and what Special Branch don't want you to know.
http://www.nutteing2.freeservers.com/dnapr.htm
or nutteingd in a search engine

email nonarevers@yahoo.co.....uk (remove 4 of 5 dots)

Paul Nutteing

05-29-2004, 02:25 AM

The yahoo group is moderated but they allow me
on there as Nona Revers

Paul Nutteing

05-30-2004, 08:41 AM

"michael" <copsR@yourdoor.com> wrote in message
news:40b82181_1@news.iprimus.com.au... "Paul Nutteing" <nutteing@quickfindit.com> asks: from http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij/dnamtgtrans3/trans-h.html In Florida they say it's about 10 percent that they duplicate their samples, and 2 percent of those samples -- when the samples coming into the lab they look for duplicates. 2 percent get by. They have a different corrections number, they have a different name, they have a different Social Security Number, they have a different date of birth. ... but the labs and dB managers still assume that they are really the same person because their profiles match. Similar to the 27 out of 14,763 Profiler Plus (9 loci) matches observed in the Aus data - they have the same profile so they *must* be the same person, even if all of their other details are different. michael

Is it blind faith, arrogant indifference or conspiracy of
silence over uninvestigated unrelated matches in databases.
I cannot believe it is incompetence . A scientist by
training investigates all anomalies as it tends to be
in those areas that discoveries are made, the rest just confirms
pre-existing theory.

Your example and 3 other examples in the public
domain of cover-up of recorded false matches:

1) from http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij/dnamtgtrans3/trans-h.html

In Florida they say it's about 10 percent that they duplicate
their samples, and 2 percent of those samples -- when the
samples coming into the lab they look for duplicates.
2 percent get by. They have a different corrections number,
they have a different name, they have a different Social Security Number,
they have a different date of birth.

So there are a large number of samples that go all the way through
the testing process and it's not until they put them into their database
that they realized they have duplicates

************
2) From Forensic Science International 114, (2000) p7-20
p7 concernig 966 DNA profiles of Arabic persons.
Quote
We note that there is one duplicate pair of profiles in
the Arabic data. Although we would not expect to see
any genuine matches in a database of this size if they
had originated from different and unrelated people
(see Table 5 ), further investigations could not rule this
out as a possibility. However, since the matching
profile is composed of alleles which are among the
most common at each locus, the allele proportion
estimates are insensitive to whether or not one profile
in the pair is discarded.
End Quote
Comment : It does not require simulations like
mine to show that any unrelated matches are far
more likely to occur between people with the most
common alleles.
It is precisely such profiles you would expect to have unrelated
matches. Matching profiles containing a few rare alleles
is likely to mean 2 profiles from the same person
or 2 highly related people.
My simulations (admittedly using UK caucasian data
rather than Arabic ) shows that for totally random
profiles you can expect one pair of unrelated matches
in a database of 13,000, 6 loci profiles ( 94,000 6-loci
matches in 4 million profiles) .
For 8 per cent relatedness about 19,000 6-loci
matches in 380,000 so about 1 in 2,700.
This FSI report was in 2000 so they should have been aware
of the very low probabilities using 6 loci.
Anyway 1 in 966 is not so far removed from
1 in 2,700 and I would proffer that it was a case
of un-related false match.

************
3) From Forensic Science International 95 (1998) p30.
again probably 6 loci profiles

Concerning data in the UK DNA database as of 04 October 1996
when there were only 6311 samples from the London
area and 573 from the Cardiff area.

"A small number of unresolved duplicate pairs of
profiles were present in the regional data :10 pairs
within the London region and 1 pair in Cardiff.
The most common cause of
duplicate entries is the use of aliases by suspects
who have been arrested on several occasions.
For administrative reasons ,it is not always possible
to resolve such duplicates by exhaustive
police investigation."

***************
4) Fom Science,Vol 256,26 June 1992 p1743
Author Patrick J. Sullivan

Title : DNA Fingerprint Matches
Quote
I am writting to comment on two aspects of the report " On the
probability of matching DNA fingerprints " by Neil J. Risch and B.
Devlin (7 Feb,p717) . Risch and Devlin searched several large
databases to determine whether there were any samples with matching
patterns across a nummber of gene loci. They found " the probability
of a matching DNA profile between unrelated individuals to be
vanishingly small....."
Last summer I was trying a Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI)
case, Minnesota v. Johnson (1),and examined three FBI databases,C-3
(Caucasian),B-4 (black), and H-3 (Hispanic). During my examination,I
discovered 25 apparent matches. Before my examination ,the existence
of these matches had been known by only a few individuals connected
with the FBI. Bruce Budowle of the FBI subsequently testified in
Minnesota v. Johnson that he was aware of these matches and that they
had been discovered when the FBI examined its database with its
computer matching program. The FBI was able to verify that most of
these matches occured because the Texas College of Osteopathic
Medicine submitted more than one blood sample from the same
individual. One false match was the result of sample handling error.
The FBI also discovered three sets of matching samples from Florida.
These samples were from the black and Hispanic databases. The FBI was
not able to identify that the Florida matches were the result of
duplicate submissions from the same individual or of submissions from
identical twins. Budowle then asked Cellmark Diagnostics (German-
town,Maryland ) to examine the matching samples. Its probes also
yielded unclear results. The Florida matches were then deleted from
the databases,even though there was no explanation for their
occurance.
The FBI again revised its databases in January 1992. The new
databases are designated C-4,B-5, and H-4. Budowle testified (2) that
all the matches have been edited out of these databases and that this
removal is justified because it is not possible for two individuals
to yield identical profiles when as many as seven probes are used. My
first point is this: Of what scientific value is a paper that seeks
to draw any conclusion from the fact there are no matches in a
database when the matches have been removed from the database before
the analysis is done? The FBI's removal of matches from its databases
before giving them to outside scientists guarantees that those
scientists' conclusions will support the FBI's "self-fulfilling
prophecy."
This is not an isolated practice. Budowle testified in United States
v. Yee (3) that the FBI ran its match program over its South Carolina
black database and found a large number of matches. The FBI's record-
keeping was such that it could only speculate as to the cause of
these matches. Again,the FBI removed them from its database.
End Quote

No where is there mention of returning to the original
pair samples and retesting on extra loci. A match in
another 6 loci, say, then they would be in a very strong
position to declare repeats rather than matches.

What they aren't telling you about DNA profiles
and what Special Branch don't want you to know.
http://www.nutteing2.freeservers.com/dnapr.htm
or nutteingd in a search engine

email nonarevers@yahoo.co.....uk (remove 4 of 5 dots)

Paul Nutteing

06-01-2004, 10:29 AM

"michael" <copsR@yourdoor.com> wrote in message
news:40bc4641_1@news.iprimus.com.au... "Paul Nutteing" <nutteing@quickfindit.com> wonders: Is it blind faith, arrogant indifference or conspiracy of silence over uninvestigated unrelated matches in databases. Not sure in the UK. The FSS remains a bit of a mystery to me. But in Aus (& NZ) its a combination of the with a large dollop of bullying from lab managers and forensic scientists with an agenda. The worst of the latter is Bruce Budowle of corrupt FBI DNA lab fame (and who also has a major financial interest in ABI). There are highly respected forensic scientists who can't get their work questioning multi-billion to one match odds published in the forensic journals because of the influence wielded by Budowle. The 'mere' billion to one odds usually used by FSS experts represents a small victory of sorts by some of the 'dissenters' over Budowle's insistence on using odds that suggest absolute uniqueness in the history of the human race. Its not Budowle all by himself of course - there is big (public) money sunk into the databases which has been justified with hyperbolic claims as to their infallibility. michaelthe FBI now wants to be able to state to a "scientific certainty" that
two DNA samples match. This is an assertion no other forensic DNA laboratory would dare make -- because there are no certainties in science, only probabilities< http://www.criminaljustice.org/MEDIA/pr000096.htm Examiner Targeted African-Americans DOJ Aware of Problems in FBI's DNA Lab Washington, DC, November 25, 1997 -- The Justice Department's Office of Inspector General, which conducted an 18-month investigation of the FBI
lab, has been on notice of problems in the FBI's DNA analysis unit (DNAU) since as far back as December 1995, the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers announced today. "Investigators from the Inspector General's
Office interviewed dozens of FBI agents during the course of their 18-month investigation," NACDL President Gerald B. Lefcourt noted. "During that
time, they turned up evidence that the prevailing culture of the lab -- which
one agent likens to a "fraternity" -- is a 'shoot from the hip' culture
favoring the prosecution, rather than a culture of objective science, and honest search for the truth." U.S. Department of Justice documents obtained by NACDL identify numerous examples of questionable practices in the DNA Unit. Among them: Plastic pipettes were used to extract DNA which had been dissolved in chloroform. However, chloroform also dissolves plastic pipettes, which
could contaminate the sample. Quantities of DNA placed in the testing gel to study band patterns were
not measured properly. Amounts too large could cause problems in analysis. Examiners commonly overexposed autoradiographs so that DNA bands appeared football-shaped rather than as a line. This makes it difficult for an examiner to accurately locate the center of a band for analysis. Some examiners would then manually move a band for analysis, which could cause
a misreading. Regarding the problem known as "band-shifting," in which the bands from supposedly identical DNA samples do not match exactly for technical
reasons, the FBI's Laboratory Division accepted a 2-2.3 percent variation in band matches. This can lead to erroneous "matches." One scientist who formerly worked in the DNA Unit also had concerns about the FBI's limited database of known DNA samples, which is a key component
of the FBI's 'landmark' new policy, announced by recently-installed FBI Lab Director Donald M. Kerr two weeks ago. This problem, which eventually
should be surmountable, was also addressed in the May 1996 National Research Council Report, The Evaluation of Forensic DNA Evidence, which recommends making a conservative estimate of the statistical likelihood of a match. Instead, the FBI now wants to be able to state to a "scientific certainty" that two DNA samples match. This is an assertion no other forensic DNA laboratory would dare make -- because there are no certainties in science, only probabilities. Moreover, such testimony directly violates the laws of evidence in many states, which prohibit an expert witness from stating an opinion on a ultimate fact in issue -- namely, the guilt of a criminal defendant. It is the job of the jury to decide guilt or innocence, not a "13th juror"demonstrating bias in favor of the prosecution, as documented by the OIG report on the FBI Lab released last spring. According to another document released by NACDL today, in April or May
1989, all DNA/serology examiners in the DNA Unit (except possibly one) failed an open serology proficiency test. (An "open" test is one in which the
examiner knows he is being tested, as opposed to a "blind" test, in which the examiner does not know he is being tested.) A supervisor discarded the
test results because, according to an FBI agent in the lab, "he feared they
would be discoverable" by defense lawyers. The test was re-administered and all examiners passed. In another document, FBI special agent Alan Robillard, identified as a former DNAU Unit Chief, admits he ordered the results of the proficiency test destroyed, but claims that "everyone" in the unit failed because "the test itself was flawed." Whether or not his assertion is true, destruction of the test results amounts to the withholding of exculpatory evidence
from countless cases involving citizens accused of crimes. And the now-established fact that the test results were destroyed, for whatever reason, is also exculpatory information which by law should be turned over to the defense in every DNA case involving the FBI. That same examiner who witnessed destruction of the proficiency test
results also stated to Justice Department investigators that there was a DNA lab technician or examiner -- to quote from a DOJ document released today -- "who would determine if suspects were Afro-Americans. If so, he would manipulate test results to prove guilt." Reportedly, that examiner was terminated, but the OIG apparently did not proceed to learn which cases
were corrupted by the examiner's malfeasance and racial bigotry; indeed, the Inspector General's office apparently did not even bother to learn the agent's name. "Perhaps there were good reasons at the time why such leads were not followed up by OIG investigators and not made a part of the OIG's final report on the FBI Lab. It is possible they were part of the original
'draft' report still not publically released. But there is no good reason now for not fully investigating the DNA Unit, particularly if the FBI wants to
claim infallibility and 'perfect' matches in court, when the lives and liberty
of American citizens are at stake," Lefcourt concluded.

A quick reply for the moment.
I should have more time tomorrow for a tailored reply
This week I've simultated a 9 loci database using
D3,FGA,D8,D21,D18,D5,D13,D7,D16
using highly autochthonous data for Basques.
For 1 million simulation giving 9 X 9 loci matches
implying underlying 1 in 320,000 characteristic.
I think it was you who suggested to factor in excess
homozygosity for inter-relatedness.
I've done that in the last few days producing a macro
to randomly produce specified excess homozygosity
and a macro for checking homozygosity before and
after surcharging. Not processed results yet.

What they aren't telling you about DNA profiles
and what Special Branch don't want you to know.
http://www.nutteing2.freeservers.com/dnapr.htm
or nutteingd in a search engine

Paul Nutteing

06-02-2004, 10:18 AM

Paul Nutteing

06-04-2004, 10:26 AM

"michael" <copsR@yourdoor.com> wrote in message
news:40bfda5c_1@news.iprimus.com.au... "Paul Nutteing" <nutteing@quickfindit.com> points out: The yahoo group is moderated but they allow me on there as Nona Revers It also requires registration and accepting cookies. While I will compromise my my internet security and privacy principles to some degree for a very good reason I don't think participation in a Yahoo group really makes the grade there. A few years ago I was registered to a Yahoo group and started receiving a lot of spam on the topic addressed by the group. Once bitten ... michael

I visited my MP today and found that he
had reformulated the question to the Home
Office without informing me.

From Hansard, apparently 29 April 2004
Criminal Justice Database

Dr. Whitehead: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department
pursuant to the answer of 17 February, how many matches are contained wholly
within the criminal justice section of the database.

Ms Blears: The National DNA Database is a criminal intelligence database and
its use is restricted by the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, as
amended, to purposes related to the prevention or detection of crime, the
investigation of an offence or the conduct of a prosecution. All of the
matches referred to in the 17 February answer, either suspect-to-scene or
scene-to-scene were made in the course of police investigations.

Another irrelent reply

He is now asking a more generalised question about
whether there is any check on uniqueness in the CJ
section to determine whether there are duplicate criminal
records for single individuals giving aliases at repeated arrests.

*********

I don't mind about cookies.
My bugbear is I'm damned if i'm going to download
a Flash handler just to process yet more added crap.
It is plain-vanilla ASCII text that i'm after 99%
of the time.
These days about half of the world's newspaper sites demand
Flash handlers, the lamps on my modem dance around
prettily but no content comes down the line because
their server is waiting for me to process the Falash content.
So I have to use anonymiser.com
or more usually megaproxy.com to strip out this
crap.
I should use proxomitron to do it directly without a proxy
but that has a sort of
white-list opt-in structure which is fine if I was
always visiting the same sites.

What they aren't telling you about DNA profiles
and what Special Branch don't want you to know.
http://www.nutteing2.freeservers.com/dnapr.htm
or nutteingd in a search engine

email nonarevers@yahoo.co.....uk (remove 4 of 5 dots)

Paul Nutteing

06-06-2004, 08:11 AM

I only noticed yesterday that there was in fact homozygosity
figures in the highly autochthonous Basques profile table.
It is in terms of heterozygosity which is 1 - homoZ
and is not as stark as I would have thought.

D13 excess HZ 16.4%
FGA +15.2%
D5 -11.2% (observed is 11.2% less than expected)
D13 +4.6%
D7 -6.0% (less)
D8 +20.3%
D21 -0.7% (less)
D18 +9.0%
D16 -2.1% (less)

I found my mislaid Australian data FSI,129 (2002) p90-98
If anything the Australian Capital Territory/ Caucasian data
is more peaked in the modal groups of the 8 common with
the Basques set. The Basques D16 is more peaked than the
vWA Oz data for the 9th locus. So overall I would
expect with a full simulation with no adjustments for
excess HZ or dropped rare alleles then the baseline
for Australian Caucasian on NIFS 9 loci would be
a bit less than 320,000 for one match

Next week if i find time will structure a macro for producing
NIFS 9 loci simulation using that FSI data.
A CODIS 13 loci simulation is a bit out of my reach without increased
computer power / software.
Also may try 6 loci ( to reduce sort time ) and increased
HZ to try and resolve the un-intuitive increased HZ
apparently leading to less matches.

What they aren't telling you about DNA profiles
and what Special Branch don't want you to know.
http://www.nutteing2.freeservers.com/dnapr.htm
or nutteingd in a search engine

email nonarevers@yahoo.co.....uk (remove 4 of 5 dots)

Paul Nutteing

06-08-2004, 10:21 AM

I've set up a simulation macro using Australian 9 loci
Capital Caucasian data with absolutely no relatedness built in .
Doing a 500,000 run produced one 9 loci match so at
this stage baseline false match population between
about 350,000 and 500,000.
Match was string
364434576668453434
which started as
634434576686453443 and
364443576686544343
so random number generator OK.
Converting back to loci - alleles this match
corresponds to
D3 15,18
vWA 18,18
D5 11,12
D8 13,15
D18 16,16
FGA 22,23
D21 28,29
D13 11,12
D7 10,11
the minimum allele frequency being 9 per cent.

I will next do a run excluding all allele frequencies
less than 3 percent.

What they aren't telling you about DNA profiles
and what Special Branch don't want you to know.
http://www.nutteing2.freeservers.com/dnapr.htm
or nutteingd in a search engine

email nonarevers@yahoo.co.....uk (remove 4 of 5 dots)

Paul Nutteing

06-09-2004, 10:17 AM

Did a 477,141 run for Oz capital Caucasian data for 3 per cent or more
allele frequencies.
Produced 3 , 9 loci matches representing
D3,vWA,D5,D8,D18,FGA,D21,D13,D7
(15,16)(16,18)(12,13)(12,13)(16,17)(20,23)(30,31.2 )(11,12)(9,10)
(15,16)(15,18)(12,12)(10,13)(16,17)(21,23)(30,30)( 11,12)(8,10)
(16,18)(16,18)(12,12)(11,13)(12,14)(23,24)(28,30)( 11,13)(10,10)
lowest allele frequency of these 3 is 8 per cent
Each pair derived from 2 different 'profiles' before directing pairs
so random function good.

So between 3 and 4 matches in 477,141 implies baseline single match in
3 percent sub-population of 1 in 240,000 to 1 in 275,000

Taking ' average ' of these 3 matches and the previous full alleles
match then the Australian Caucasian 'Average Joe' on
D3,vWA,D5,D8,D18,FGA,D21,D13,D7 is
(15,16)(16,18)(12,12)(13,13)(16,17)(21,23)(30,30)( 11.12)(10,10)
Other matches - pairs
6 loci - 12,718
7 - 732
8 - 59

Triples
6 loci - 749
7 - 2

Quadruples
6 loci- 53
7 - 0

What they aren't telling you about DNA profiles
and what Special Branch don't want you to know.
http://www.nutteing2.freeservers.com)(dnapr.htm
or nutteingd in a search engine

email nonarevers@yahoo.co.....uk (remove 4 of 5 dots)

Paul Nutteing

06-11-2004, 10:23 AM

The nice thing about the world's forensic statisticians having
hoodwinked virtually everyone by making reference to
billions,trillions .... even heptillions is I have a whole area of
research almost to myself.
Recently I was finding that excess homozygosity does not
necessarily lead to a greater probability of unrelated false
matches of DNA profiles.
I have now found another rule that comes into play in
unrelated DNA profile matches.
I did 4 off 50,000 runs of 6- loci profiles based on Australian
data.
First run produced 64 off 12 digit matches.
Adding some homozygosity, resorting and checking again
there was only 50 matches.
Another run , without excess HZ, produced 55 matches
Repeating but this time adding the homozygosity at generation,
sorting and match checking, again resulted in only 50 pairs.

Australian caucasian data just for locus D5
Code here / Allele / Allele frequency %
0 8 0.49
1 9 3.08
2 10 6.03
3 11 39.16
4 12 34.36
5 13 15.64
6 14 1.11
7 15 0.12

For unmodified D5 subset of 50,000 profiles
bi-allele totals, firstly homoZ then largest heteroZ counts
00 - 2
11 - 59
22 - 166
33 - 7,647
44 - 5,848
55 - 1,274
66 - 4

34 - 13,364
35 - 6,165
45 - 5,367
23 - 2,357
24 - 2,132

Then adding HZ, seriously over-inflating the
rarest allele occurances
00 - 86
11 - 562
22 - 1,104
33 - 10,946
44 - 6,797
55 - 1,300
66 - 4

34 - 11,184
35 - 5,130
45 - 4,482
23 - 1,937
24 - 1,781

Overall excess D5 HZ = 38.7 %
33 excess HZ 43%
44 excess HZ 21.8%
So new 33 count is now nearly the same as the now reduced
34 count and as a consequence is equally likely to influence the
6 loci match situation but only if the excess HZ on other loci
is similar in behaviour.
But if 33 excess HZ was only 20%
then 33 count goes up from 7,647 to about 9,200 but
still less than the 34 count now about 12,400. The square law has
it that the larger counts predominate disproportionately.

Consider 44 situation ( less likely to occur in matches)
but now 6,797 >> 4,482 so critical in comparison.

Now consider the general case.
h is homozygosity expressed as scaling factor ie 1.28 rather than 28 per
cent.
a is the allele frequency of an alelle that has excess HZ factor of h
and b is the highest (unaltered HZ ) allele frequency of the remaining
alleles.
Normal HZ is a^2 and b^2
Highest normal hetero-bi-allele frequency = 2*a*b
Excess HZ increases a to (a^2)*h
Highest hetero-bi-allele frequency becomes approximately = 2*b *{a -
0.5*a(h-1)}
= a* b*(3 - h)
So criticality is if a*a*h <> a*b *(3-h)
or a*h <> b* (3-h)

So even if h is high then the b frequency if high
enough in comparison it can over-ride.
Then this effect has to be present in most loci to
affect the overall match probability.

Excess HZ of less than 10 % is generally more likely to reduce the number
of unrelated profile matches in populations of the same type and size.

The first rule is that unrelated matches involve primarily the more common
alleles and the frequency of these common alleles is increased in match
profiles and the rarer alleles decrease in the matches and the rarest
do not occur, at least in sub- 10 million populations.

What they aren't telling you about DNA profiles
and what Special Branch don't want you to know.
http://www.nutteing2.freeservers.com/dnapr.htm
or nutteingd in a search engine

email nonarevers@yahoo.co.....uk (remove 4 of 5 dots)

Greg

09-01-2004, 01:48 AM

I remember an example in a paternity case in the US. The test result was
that the father was indeed the biological father, but the mother was not
the biological mother.
Further investigation revealed that DNA extracted from the mother's blood
did not match DNA extracted from the mother's tissue.
She was in fact a chimera, one indiviadual made up of two distinct sets of
DNA from two seperately conceived eggs.
Further research has shown that this is far more common than anyone had
thought.

Regards

"Acid Pooh" <poohonlsd@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:d7ba1f79.0405261927.723c3505@posting.google.c om... Jonathan Bryce <jonathan@localhost.localdomain> wrote in message news:<1085255021.91758@news01.eclipse.net.uk>... Peter Webb wrote: You are assuming that each loci can have only two values, match and no match. With degrees of match you can make any number. Do you know that it is as simple as match/no match ? Well either the DNA is exactly the same, or it isn't. Even if it is almost the same, it is still a different person, but possibly a close relative. Not true. We all have several versions in our bodies all the time. Most mutations are minor, and will be repaired. But some minor mutations are not repaired. Cancer cells are an example of non-minor mutations (they affect the cell's metabolism/reproduction) Point is: this is a popular misconception that has no place in a court room. 'cid 'ooh

Paul Nutteing

09-01-2004, 11:13 AM

"Greg" <gbradleyone@bigpond.com> wrote in message
news:f1gZc.15540$D7.153@news-server.bigpond.net.au... I remember an example in a paternity case in the US. The test result was that the father was indeed the biological father, but the mother was not the biological mother. Further investigation revealed that DNA extracted from the mother's blood did not match DNA extracted from the mother's tissue. She was in fact a chimera, one indiviadual made up of two distinct sets of DNA from two seperately conceived eggs. Further research has shown that this is far more common than anyone had thought. Regards "Acid Pooh" <poohonlsd@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:d7ba1f79.0405261927.723c3505@posting.google.c om... Jonathan Bryce <jonathan@localhost.localdomain> wrote in message news:<1085255021.91758@news01.eclipse.net.uk>... Peter Webb wrote: > You are assuming that each loci can have only two values, match and
no > match. With degrees of match you can make any number. Do you know
that > it > is as simple as match/no match ? Well either the DNA is exactly the same, or it isn't. Even if it is almost the same, it is still a different person, but possibly a close
relative. Not true. We all have several versions in our bodies all the time. Most mutations are minor, and will be repaired. But some minor mutations are not repaired. Cancer cells are an example of non-minor mutations (they affect the cell's metabolism/reproduction) Point is: this is a popular misconception that has no place in a court room. 'cid 'ooh

Chimeras discussed last year on
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/forensic-science/message/4905
Extremely rare

Far more importantly for forensic use again coming
from paternity disputes is exact figures for mutation rates
on different loci , here, for the 10 loci used in UK police DNA profiles
From
http://www.canadiancrc.com/PDFs/American_Blood_Banks_study_2001.pdf

Table 9. . Apparent Mutations Summarized for Genetic Systems Analyzed by PCR
System Maternal . (%) Maternal Null (%) Paternal . (%) Paternal Null (%)
Paternal or Maternal

D2S1338 0/ 1025=<. 1 0/ 1025=<. 1 10/ 46195=. 02 0/ 1630= 0 3/ 2050=. 15

D3S1358 14/ 94449=. 02 4/ 209197=. 002 193/ 147483=. 13 11/ 113424=. 01 132/
171597=. 08

D8S1179 15/ 77866=. 02 15/ 77866=. 02 205/ 126616=. 20 13/ 73502=. 02 74/
151368=. 05

D16S539 38/ 169351=. 02 11/ 125403=. 009 203/ 180286=. 11 23/ 125493=. 02
127/ 349637=. 04

D18S51 47/ 86851=. 05 7/ 72410=. 009 229/ 110748=. 21 10/ 75782=. 013 160/
115433=. 14

D19S433* 3/ 1025=. 3 0/ 1025= 0 1/ 1025=. 1 0/ 1025= 0 1/ 2050=. 05

D21S11 107/ 102238=. 1 13/ 90177=. 01 182/ 118384=. 15 11/ 85972=. 01 221/
220622=. 1

FGA 56/ 94290=. 06 4/ 83342=. 005 893/ 298824=. 3 17/ 86854=. 02 271/
130332=. 21

THO1 17/ 189478=. 008 10/ 145630=. 007 25/ 242231=. 01 8/ 161892=. 005 14/
176805=. 008

VWA 74/ 243918=. 03 11/ 175088=. 006 1388/ 454771=. 30 45/ 223277=. 02 368/
211176=. 17 .

End edited table

First point, male mutation rate higher than female.
Second although mainly between 0.01 and 0.3 percent there are
20 such possibilities in each UK DNA profile

At the moment used aa a fudge for prosecuting people
when there are mismatches between suspect anbd crime scene
profiles. They do not further test to nail down mutations.
How more corrupt can you get than that.

19 matches and 1 mismmatch is otherwise a MISMATCH
not a match as these bastards keep claiming.

What they aren't telling you about DNA profiles
and what Special Branch don't want you to know.
http://www.nutteing2.freeservers.com/dnapr.htm
or nutteingd in a search engine

Valid email nutteing@fastmail.....fm (remove 4 of the 5 dots)
Ignore any other apparent em address used to post this message -
it is defunct due to spam.

Sylvia Else

09-01-2004, 04:02 PM

Paul Nutteing wrote:
First point, male mutation rate higher than female. Second although mainly between 0.01 and 0.3 percent there are 20 such possibilities in each UK DNA profile At the moment used aa a fudge for prosecuting people when there are mismatches between suspect anbd crime scene profiles. They do not further test to nail down mutations. How more corrupt can you get than that.

There's no reason to assume that further testing will help. For example,
if the crime scene sample is a small clump of skin cells, then the
mutation may be on a very small area somewhere on the suspect's body.
It's hardly practical to go over the entire body surface taking samples
every half millimetre.

Even with 20 matches, the result is simply expressed as a probability.
If there's one mismatch, and given that mutations clearly occur, the
result is just a different (albeit higher) probability that the sample
did not come from the suspect.

So the court has to form a view about whether the probability is low
enough not to constitute reasonable doubt.

Sylvia.

Paul Nutteing

09-01-2004, 11:46 PM

"Sylvia Else" <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote in message
news:413654f8$0$16145$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.a u... Paul Nutteing wrote: First point, male mutation rate higher than female. Second although mainly between 0.01 and 0.3 percent there are 20 such possibilities in each UK DNA profile At the moment used aa a fudge for prosecuting people when there are mismatches between suspect anbd crime scene profiles. They do not further test to nail down mutations. How more corrupt can you get than that. There's no reason to assume that further testing will help. For example, if the crime scene sample is a small clump of skin cells, then the mutation may be on a very small area somewhere on the suspect's body. It's hardly practical to go over the entire body surface taking samples every half millimetre. Even with 20 matches, the result is simply expressed as a probability. If there's one mismatch, and given that mutations clearly occur, the result is just a different (albeit higher) probability that the sample did not come from the suspect. So the court has to form a view about whether the probability is low enough not to constitute reasonable doubt. Sylvia.

Sorry, no , you miss the point.
If 19 matches and 1 mismatch then without further
analysis it is evidence that this suspect is falsely
implicated. Suddenly the false match probability
drops from the (can't be bothered to discredit for the
moment ) multi-billions to one down to 0 probability of a match.
It is pure exculpatory, exclusionary, evidence, especially if
the 'suspect' was implicated via DNA database 'hit' in
the first place
Of course with further exploration and confirmation of
a mutation on the 20th locus/allele then even stronger
evidence of involvement.

What they aren't telling you about DNA profiles
and what Special Branch don't want you to know.
http://www.nutteing2.freeservers.com/dnapr.htm
or nutteingd in a search engine

Valid email nutteing@fastmail.....fm (remove 4 of the 5 dots)
Ignore any other apparent em address used to post this message -
it is defunct due to spam.

Sylvia Else

09-02-2004, 12:21 AM

Paul Nutteing wrote:
Sorry, no , you miss the point. If 19 matches and 1 mismatch then without further analysis it is evidence that this suspect is falsely implicated. Suddenly the false match probability drops from the (can't be bothered to discredit for the moment ) multi-billions to one down to 0 probability of a match.

When we're talking about a mututation here, we mean a locus/allele
(hereinafter just 'place') that differs from that inherited by the
individual at conception, do we not?

Is a mutation objectively recognisable other than by noting an
inconsistency with the same place on DNA obtained from a different part
of the owner's body? That is to say, can we just look at the sample
retrieved from the scene and without reference to other DNA, conclude
that a particular place is a mutation?

Sylvia.

Greg

09-02-2004, 02:34 AM

"Sylvia Else" <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote in message
news:413654f8$0$16145$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.a u... Paul Nutteing wrote: First point, male mutation rate higher than female. Second although mainly between 0.01 and 0.3 percent there are 20 such possibilities in each UK DNA profile At the moment used aa a fudge for prosecuting people when there are mismatches between suspect anbd crime scene profiles. They do not further test to nail down mutations. How more corrupt can you get than that. There's no reason to assume that further testing will help. For example, if the crime scene sample is a small clump of skin cells, then the mutation may be on a very small area somewhere on the suspect's body. It's hardly practical to go over the entire body surface taking samples every half millimetre. Even with 20 matches, the result is simply expressed as a probability. If there's one mismatch, and given that mutations clearly occur, the result is just a different (albeit higher) probability that the sample did not come from the suspect. So the court has to form a view about whether the probability is low enough not to constitute reasonable doubt.

The problem is, neither judges nor jury tend to be experts on probability.
Even supposed experts on probability often make logical errors.
Recent review of the work of scientists trying to discover the Higgs Boson
found that
their method of calculating probability was wrong. They had publically
stated their
methodology when published and it survived years of peer scrutiny by people
who's work
revolves solely around probability theory.
I personally think that this is where our adversarial system of judgement is
lacking, it relies on
the testimony of interested parties with no provision for independant
advise.
Sylvia.

Paul Nutteing

09-02-2004, 10:27 AM

"Sylvia Else" <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote in message
news:4136ca0b$0$25726$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.a u... Paul Nutteing wrote: Sorry, no , you miss the point. If 19 matches and 1 mismatch then without further analysis it is evidence that this suspect is falsely implicated. Suddenly the false match probability drops from the (can't be bothered to discredit for the moment ) multi-billions to one down to 0 probability of a match. When we're talking about a mututation here, we mean a locus/allele (hereinafter just 'place') that differs from that inherited by the individual at conception, do we not? Is a mutation objectively recognisable other than by noting an inconsistency with the same place on DNA obtained from a different part of the owner's body? That is to say, can we just look at the sample retrieved from the scene and without reference to other DNA, conclude that a particular place is a mutation? Sylvia.

I'm thinking of the situation of rape.
Suspect found after a 'hit' on a DNA database where
his DNA profile is determined by cheek-cell scrape.
A close match to a DNA profile derrived from the germ-line
cells left at a rape.
A 19 in 20 match is considered to be a match without
further investigating ( via sperm sample) from the
suspect that he does in deed have a mutation in 1
locus/allele. Giving the difference between buccal cells
and germ line cells and a 20 point match.
Without investigating the 20th he is not the suspect.

The background 10 locus/20 datapoint false match
figures within a population of 4 million is less than
1 in 500,000. Allowing 19 in 20 matches and that is permutating
any 19 from 20 then this increases the false match probability
by something like a factor of 70.
That is 1 in 500,000 down to 1 in 70,000 or so

What they aren't telling you about DNA profiles
and what Special Branch don't want you to know.
http://www.nutteing2.freeservers.com/dnapr.htm
or nutteingd in a search engine

Valid email nutteing@fastmail.....fm (remove 4 of the 5 dots)
Ignore any other apparent em address used to post this message -
it is defunct due to spam.