Must the random man be unrelated? A lingering misconception in forensic genetics


Téléchargements par mois depuis la dernière année

Plus de statistiques...

Milot, Emmanuel, Baechler, Simon et Crispino, Frank (2020). Must the random man be unrelated? A lingering misconception in forensic genetics. Forensic Science International: Synergy, 2 . pp. 35-40. ISSN 0379-0738 1872-6283 DOI 10.1016/j.fsisyn.2019.11.003

[thumbnail of CRISPINO_F_80_POST.pdf]
Télécharger (382kB) | Prévisualisation


A nearly universal practice among forensic DNA scientists includes mentioning an unrelated person as the possible alternative source of a DNA stain, when one in fact refers to an unknown person. Hence, experts typically express their conclusions with statements like: “The probability of the DNA evidence is X times higher if the suspect is the source of the trace than if another person unrelated to the suspect is the source of the trace.” Published forensic guidelines encourage such allusions to the unrelated person. However, as the authors show here, rational reasoning and population genetic principles do not require the conditioning of the evidential value on the unrelatedness between the unknown individual and the person of interest (e.g., a suspect). Surprisingly, this important semantic issue has been overlooked for decades, despite its potential to mislead the interpretation of DNA evidence by criminal justice system stakeholders. © 2019

Type de document: Article
Date de dépôt: 25 mars 2020 20:26
Dernière modification: 13 nov. 2020 05:00
Version du document déposé: Post-print (version corrigée et acceptée)

Actions (administrateurs uniquement)

Éditer la notice Éditer la notice