3 ms·
"As far as I can tell, the article is about calculating the probability of random people matching a particular DNA sample, not about excluding people, which is
by gnosis 16y ago
"As far as I can tell, the article is about calculating the probability of random people matching a particular DNA sample, not about excluding people, which is a lot easier."
No.
The article is very clearly questions the role of DNA evidence as a whole.
A couple of relevant quotes:
"Defence experts were trusting that the scientists had interpreted the data correctly. This perpetuated the myth that DNA is infallible."
"There's a considerable lack of understanding, not just from the public, but from the judges and lawyers."
- pessimizer 16y ago"This week we show how, even when analysts agree that someone could be a match for a piece of DNA evidence, the statistical weight assigned to that match can vary enormously." This seems to be the author's opinion about what the article is about.
- gnosis 16y agoI guess we'll just have to agree to disagree about this. Make of it what you will. The article speaks for itself.
- pessimizer 16y agoIt does, and when it speaks, it speaks of different statistical methods for calculating the probability of a random match to partial DNA samples. edit: BTW, it's a very interesting article - thanks for pointing it out.