<snipped for focus>
daily.jstor.org
All quotes from the article cited above:How Forensic DNA Evidence Can Lead to Wrongful Convictions - JSTOR Daily
Forensic DNA evidence has been a game-changer for law enforcement, but research shows it can contribute to miscarriages of justice.
"Unfortunately, the process isn't quite as conclusive as it's often made out to be. DNA analysis doesn't typically involve sequencing the entire genome; instead, it focuses on certain sites that give a good indicator of differences between individuals.
Modern technology is capable of detecting even incredibly small traces of DNA. In theory, this is a huge advantage — but in practice, it can lead to false positives because of the sheer amount of genetic material that might be found."
"Partial profiles will match up with many more people than a full profile. And even full profiles may match with a person other than the culprit. Further complicating matters, a single DNA profile might be mistakenly generated when samples from multiple people are accidentally combined. It’s a messy world."
"...even full profiles may match with a person other than the culprit."
"Telling a jury it is implausible that anyone besides the suspect would have the same DNA test results is seldom, if ever, justified,” the report states." (referring to an American Bar Association Report)
"Then there’s the uncomfortable and inconvenient truth that any of us could have DNA present at a crime scene—even if we were never there. Moreover, DNA recovered at a crime scene could have been deposited there at a time other than when the crime took place. Someone could have visited beforehand or stumbled upon the scene afterward. Alternatively, their DNA could have arrived via a process called secondary transfer, where their DNA was transferred to someone else, who carried it to the scene."
"Additionally, DNA technology is becoming more and more sensitive, but this is a double-edged sword. On one hand, usable DNA evidence is more likely to be detected than ever before. On the other hand, contamination DNA and DNA that arrived by secondary transfer is now more likely to be detected, confusing investigations. If legal and judicial personnel aren’t fully trained in how to interpret forensic and DNA evidence, it can result in false leads and miscarriages of justice."
Add to all of the above the fact that there are, in every software product in existence, intermittent software errors which may or may not be caught and identified by the end user plus there can also be human errors in the process. To put it simply, AT has MORE than good reason to want full disclosure of how BK was identified via DNA. There is a plethora of things which can go wrong.
JMOO.
The AT idea is trying for is that the GG run by Ortham labs returned names or used data of peple not opted in.
MOO Not relevant in this case.All quotes from the article cited above:How Forensic DNA Evidence Can Lead to Wrongful Convictions - JSTOR Daily
Forensic DNA evidence has been a game-changer for law enforcement, but research shows it can contribute to miscarriages of justice.
"Unfortunately, the process isn't quite as conclusive as it's often made out to be. DNA analysis doesn't typically involve sequencing the entire genome; instead, it focuses on certain sites that give a good indicator of differences between individuals.
Modern technology is capable of detecting even incredibly small traces of DNA. In theory, this is a huge advantage — but in practice, it can lead to false positives because of the sheer amount of genetic material that might be found."
"Partial profiles will match up with many more people than a full profile. And even full profiles may match with a person other than the culprit. Further complicating matters, a single DNA profile might be mistakenly generated when samples from multiple people are accidentally combined. It’s a messy world."
"...even full profiles may match with a person other than the culprit."
"Telling a jury it is implausible that anyone besides the suspect would have the same DNA test results is seldom, if ever, justified,” the report states." (referring to an American Bar Association Report)
"Then there’s the uncomfortable and inconvenient truth that any of us could have DNA present at a crime scene—even if we were never there. Moreover, DNA recovered at a crime scene could have been deposited there at a time other than when the crime took place. Someone could have visited beforehand or stumbled upon the scene afterward. Alternatively, their DNA could have arrived via a process called secondary transfer, where their DNA was transferred to someone else, who carried it to the scene."
"Additionally, DNA technology is becoming more and more sensitive, but this is a double-edged sword. On one hand, usable DNA evidence is more likely to be detected than ever before. On the other hand, contamination DNA and DNA that arrived by secondary transfer is now more likely to be detected, confusing investigations. If legal and judicial personnel aren’t fully trained in how to interpret forensic and DNA evidence, it can result in false leads and miscarriages of justice."
Add to all of the above the fact that there are, in every software product in existence, intermittent software errors which may or may not be caught and identified by the end user plus there can also be human errors in the process. To put it simply, AT has MORE than good reason to want full disclosure of how BK was identified via DNA. There is a plethora of things which can go wrong.
JMOO.
Or she could just send it a lab for a second opinion?All quotes from the article cited above:How Forensic DNA Evidence Can Lead to Wrongful Convictions - JSTOR Daily
Forensic DNA evidence has been a game-changer for law enforcement, but research shows it can contribute to miscarriages of justice.
"Unfortunately, the process isn't quite as conclusive as it's often made out to be. DNA analysis doesn't typically involve sequencing the entire genome; instead, it focuses on certain sites that give a good indicator of differences between individuals.
Modern technology is capable of detecting even incredibly small traces of DNA. In theory, this is a huge advantage — but in practice, it can lead to false positives because of the sheer amount of genetic material that might be found."
"Partial profiles will match up with many more people than a full profile. And even full profiles may match with a person other than the culprit. Further complicating matters, a single DNA profile might be mistakenly generated when samples from multiple people are accidentally combined. It’s a messy world."
"...even full profiles may match with a person other than the culprit."
"Telling a jury it is implausible that anyone besides the suspect would have the same DNA test results is seldom, if ever, justified,” the report states." (referring to an American Bar Association Report)
"Then there’s the uncomfortable and inconvenient truth that any of us could have DNA present at a crime scene—even if we were never there. Moreover, DNA recovered at a crime scene could have been deposited there at a time other than when the crime took place. Someone could have visited beforehand or stumbled upon the scene afterward. Alternatively, their DNA could have arrived via a process called secondary transfer, where their DNA was transferred to someone else, who carried it to the scene."
"Additionally, DNA technology is becoming more and more sensitive, but this is a double-edged sword. On one hand, usable DNA evidence is more likely to be detected than ever before. On the other hand, contamination DNA and DNA that arrived by secondary transfer is now more likely to be detected, confusing investigations. If legal and judicial personnel aren’t fully trained in how to interpret forensic and DNA evidence, it can result in false leads and miscarriages of justice."
Add to all of the above the fact that there are, in every software product in existence, intermittent software errors which may or may not be caught and identified by the end user plus there can also be human errors in the process. To put it simply, AT has MORE than good reason to want full disclosure of how BK was identified via DNA. There is a plethora of things which can go wrong.
JMOO.
This is at least the second time you've posted this article. It's OT, in my opinion, ORTHAM is complete "opt-in" and used in forensics.All quotes from the article cited above:How Forensic DNA Evidence Can Lead to Wrongful Convictions - JSTOR Daily
Forensic DNA evidence has been a game-changer for law enforcement, but research shows it can contribute to miscarriages of justice.
"Unfortunately, the process isn't quite as conclusive as it's often made out to be. DNA analysis doesn't typically involve sequencing the entire genome; instead, it focuses on certain sites that give a good indicator of differences between individuals.
Modern technology is capable of detecting even incredibly small traces of DNA. In theory, this is a huge advantage — but in practice, it can lead to false positives because of the sheer amount of genetic material that might be found."
"Partial profiles will match up with many more people than a full profile. And even full profiles may match with a person other than the culprit. Further complicating matters, a single DNA profile might be mistakenly generated when samples from multiple people are accidentally combined. It’s a messy world."
"...even full profiles may match with a person other than the culprit."
"Telling a jury it is implausible that anyone besides the suspect would have the same DNA test results is seldom, if ever, justified,” the report states." (referring to an American Bar Association Report)
"Then there’s the uncomfortable and inconvenient truth that any of us could have DNA present at a crime scene—even if we were never there. Moreover, DNA recovered at a crime scene could have been deposited there at a time other than when the crime took place. Someone could have visited beforehand or stumbled upon the scene afterward. Alternatively, their DNA could have arrived via a process called secondary transfer, where their DNA was transferred to someone else, who carried it to the scene."
"Additionally, DNA technology is becoming more and more sensitive, but this is a double-edged sword. On one hand, usable DNA evidence is more likely to be detected than ever before. On the other hand, contamination DNA and DNA that arrived by secondary transfer is now more likely to be detected, confusing investigations. If legal and judicial personnel aren’t fully trained in how to interpret forensic and DNA evidence, it can result in false leads and miscarriages of justice."
Add to all of the above the fact that there are, in every software product in existence, intermittent software errors which may or may not be caught and identified by the end user plus there can also be human errors in the process. To put it simply, AT has MORE than good reason to want full disclosure of how BK was identified via DNA. There is a plethora of things which can go wrong.
JMOO.
AT isn't disputing the Idaho State Lab DNA results. And how can a computer have a bias? Especially SINGLE SOURCE bias?
This article, written in 2017, cites three studies:All quotes from the article cited above:How Forensic DNA Evidence Can Lead to Wrongful Convictions - JSTOR Daily
Forensic DNA evidence has been a game-changer for law enforcement, but research shows it can contribute to miscarriages of justice.
"Unfortunately, the process isn't quite as conclusive as it's often made out to be. DNA analysis doesn't typically involve sequencing the entire genome; instead, it focuses on certain sites that give a good indicator of differences between individuals.
Modern technology is capable of detecting even incredibly small traces of DNA. In theory, this is a huge advantage — but in practice, it can lead to false positives because of the sheer amount of genetic material that might be found."
"Partial profiles will match up with many more people than a full profile. And even full profiles may match with a person other than the culprit. Further complicating matters, a single DNA profile might be mistakenly generated when samples from multiple people are accidentally combined. It’s a messy world."
"...even full profiles may match with a person other than the culprit."
"Telling a jury it is implausible that anyone besides the suspect would have the same DNA test results is seldom, if ever, justified,” the report states." (referring to an American Bar Association Report)
"Then there’s the uncomfortable and inconvenient truth that any of us could have DNA present at a crime scene—even if we were never there. Moreover, DNA recovered at a crime scene could have been deposited there at a time other than when the crime took place. Someone could have visited beforehand or stumbled upon the scene afterward. Alternatively, their DNA could have arrived via a process called secondary transfer, where their DNA was transferred to someone else, who carried it to the scene."
"Additionally, DNA technology is becoming more and more sensitive, but this is a double-edged sword. On one hand, usable DNA evidence is more likely to be detected than ever before. On the other hand, contamination DNA and DNA that arrived by secondary transfer is now more likely to be detected, confusing investigations. If legal and judicial personnel aren’t fully trained in how to interpret forensic and DNA evidence, it can result in false leads and miscarriages of justice."
Add to all of the above the fact that there are, in every software product in existence, intermittent software errors which may or may not be caught and identified by the end user plus there can also be human errors in the process. To put it simply, AT has MORE than good reason to want full disclosure of how BK was identified via DNA. There is a plethora of things which can go wrong.
JMOO.
Can you even imagine? How voluminous that would be? His DNA was compared to every single person who submitted DNA! Computer near-instaneously eliminating the most remote matches, eliminating more and more, like a shrinking set of concentric circles, spiraling inward until it reached the closest matches! Even there, it would have spiraled around 3rd and 4th and 5th degree cousins! No need to include all those names when there was a 1st generation end product!
31 YEARS AGO!!!!! LOL
Your article also says this:All quotes from the article cited above:How Forensic DNA Evidence Can Lead to Wrongful Convictions - JSTOR Daily
Forensic DNA evidence has been a game-changer for law enforcement, but research shows it can contribute to miscarriages of justice.
"Unfortunately, the process isn't quite as conclusive as it's often made out to be. DNA analysis doesn't typically involve sequencing the entire genome; instead, it focuses on certain sites that give a good indicator of differences between individuals.
Modern technology is capable of detecting even incredibly small traces of DNA. In theory, this is a huge advantage — but in practice, it can lead to false positives because of the sheer amount of genetic material that might be found."
"Partial profiles will match up with many more people than a full profile. And even full profiles may match with a person other than the culprit. Further complicating matters, a single DNA profile might be mistakenly generated when samples from multiple people are accidentally combined. It’s a messy world."
"...even full profiles may match with a person other than the culprit."
"Telling a jury it is implausible that anyone besides the suspect would have the same DNA test results is seldom, if ever, justified,” the report states." (referring to an American Bar Association Report)
"Then there’s the uncomfortable and inconvenient truth that any of us could have DNA present at a crime scene—even if we were never there. Moreover, DNA recovered at a crime scene could have been deposited there at a time other than when the crime took place. Someone could have visited beforehand or stumbled upon the scene afterward. Alternatively, their DNA could have arrived via a process called secondary transfer, where their DNA was transferred to someone else, who carried it to the scene."
"Additionally, DNA technology is becoming more and more sensitive, but this is a double-edged sword. On one hand, usable DNA evidence is more likely to be detected than ever before. On the other hand, contamination DNA and DNA that arrived by secondary transfer is now more likely to be detected, confusing investigations. If legal and judicial personnel aren’t fully trained in how to interpret forensic and DNA evidence, it can result in false leads and miscarriages of justice."
Add to all of the above the fact that there are, in every software product in existence, intermittent software errors which may or may not be caught and identified by the end user plus there can also be human errors in the process. To put it simply, AT has MORE than good reason to want full disclosure of how BK was identified via DNA. There is a plethora of things which can go wrong.
JMOO.
I believe the jury when shown the DOJ policy, and the fact the Ortham Labs is a 100% opt-in database will see what the ruse is.
www.23andme.com
