Re: Frequent false reports: where's the evidence? (was: Re: Rape Education Story #60

On Tue, 2 Dec 2003 02:44:26 -0000, "John James" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>
>"Ellen Mercer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

[...]

>> People who study DNA know that to compare it to fingerprinting is
>> rather like comparing the Sistine Chapel to stick figure drawings by
>> the 7 year-old down the block.
>
>But I wasn't comparing the two methods - I was drawing attention to the
>analogy between how fingerprinting was regarded by forensic scientists in
>the early 20th Century, 

It might interest you to know that the assertion that everyone has
different fingerprints has never received scientific scrutiny. And
then there are issues with cataloging methods, matching methods, and
apparent matches on partial prints. I suggest that the belief that
no two people have the same fingerprints is just that, it is not
something that's been objectively scrutinized.

>and how DNA typing is regarded by them today.

Another point in fact, DNA testing *is* in it's infancy, they do not
read and compare the entire DNA strand, rather they compare only a few
sections.

I've not verified this but someone in posting said that when they
combined two DNA databases they came up with some matches that were
not supposed to be possible.

So what can you say? I will say this, if done correctly, DNA mismatches
should be valid. The problem is that it's not clear that matches are.

>They
>may of course be correct *now*, but I'm throwing my lot in with Thomas.

What evidence do you have that fingerprints are unique JJ? 

>As a
>layman in the field, albeit an interested one, I haven't yet been convinced
>by the arguments that profiling offers a multi-million to one chance of a
>mismatch. How do they *know*? Has anyone conducted a study to determine
>whether DNA markers are correlated, or is it simply assumed that they are
>statistically independent?

Today, they can tell your race from your DNA JJ. Funny that, they can
measure what today's dogmatists claim does not exist. As I recall you
are a dogmatist of this type.

>I'd be genuinely interested if you could shed any
>light on that. It seems there have been differences of opinion recently
>amongst DNA experts as to the orders of magnitude involved in the
>statistics, and that is of vital importance if the science is to be used to
>judge guilt or innocence.

One curious point is that a DNA match does not (and cannot) differentiate
between consensual sex and rape. But it remains that a mismatch (which
is the only thing today I consider valid) proves that the man did not
do the dirty deed. 

Rich

[...]

>John James (JJ)
>