Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

How Statistics Can Foul the Meaning of DNA Evidence

Posted by timothy on from the persecution-rests dept.

azoblue writes with a piece in New Scientist that might make you rethink the concept of "statistical certainty." As the article puts it, "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, even by orders of magnitude." Azoblue writes: "For instance, in one man's trial the DNA evidence statistic ranged from 1/95,000 to 1/13, depending on the different weighing methods used by the defense and the prosecution."

4 of 215 comments (clear)

  1. Here's a tip: DON'T GET ARRESTED !! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    If you are arrested, statistically YOU FUCKING DID THE CRIME !! Don't do the crime if you can't do the time: DON'T DO IT !!

    And for all you fucking lip readers out there:

    D.O.N.'.T. D.O. I.T. !.!.

  2. Re:1/13 by blair1q · · Score: -1, Flamebait

    Isn't that how we determined there must be WMD in Iraq?

  3. Re:Numbers don't lie. by Beelzebud · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Are you actually that dense?

  4. Re:Whaa? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Flamebait

    Suppose someone get the license number of a vehicle involved in a hit and run. But wait, the victim's car has two of the same numbers on his license plate. Do we exclude those numbers when we look at the defendant's plate? Of course not. Same with DNA, what are the odds of the defendant having all fifteen markers at the same places as the evidence? It means nothing if the victim happens to have some of them but not the others, it's the unique combination of all fifteen that's important.