MurriFlower
Inactive
- Joined
- Mar 25, 2010
- Messages
- 1,980
- Reaction score
- 15
MurriFlower,
You really must retake your semester statistics class again!
Everyone accepts that the owner may have transferred the touch-dna e.g. its not DNA, that can be a misleading description.
If only the owner of the touch-dna could have transferred the touch-dna then the probability it was an intruder would be 1. e.g. certainty!
But more than one person may have transferred the touch-dna e.g. there may have been multiple independent transfers of the touch-dna, but lets assume it was just one person, since that one person can be selected from quite a large population then then the probability that the touch-dna originated from the intruder starts to reduce e.g it starts falling towards 0 and away from 1.
So this little number offered by you is patently false.
Presumably your exageration was intended to bolster your IDI.
The lack of any other corroborating forensic evidence actually weakens the IDI case. One follicle of hair, a drop of saliva, a few foreign fibers discovered elsewhere at the crime-scene would increase the probability of an IDI theory.
To date there has been no credible IDI theory offered to explain the crime-scene evidence. Yet there are RDI candidates.
.
Wrong again!! There is corroborating forensic evidence to the touch DNA and this is the matching DNA found in the spot of JBR's blood in the panties. The same unidentifed males DNA found in three places on two separate items of clothing in areas related to the crime. Your statistics are meaningless in the face of this.