Posted on 10/12/2018 9:58:52 AM PDT by ETL
You have no basis in fact to make such a claim, and likely have no clue what constitutes evidence sufficient to issue an arrest warrant.
In order for me to be arrested there needs to be “probable cause” that I committed the crime in question. Unless it is a 100% match, DNA does not meet the probable cause criteria. Anything less than 100% completely exonerates me.
Seems like this is a mute point, pretty well set in cement, apart from a complete breakdown of society’s records. I guess we need to deal with it.
Yep. I’ve done it — solved two sealed adoptions that way.
“Yesterday, at our wonderful DMV, I had 3 electronic fingerprints of my right index finger. None of them worked.”
I’m younger but the machines didn’t work on me, either. I can’t use an iPhone because it doesn’t register my swipe. I tried the “use your thumb to ID you” on my iPad. No joy.
I am hypothyroid and my temperature is lower than “normal”. If I get to 98.6°, I have a temperature!
Between that and a lot of hours wearing off my prints on a keyboard, the last time I needed fingerprinting, when the machine didn’t work, they tried ink and paper. That wouldn’t produce clear prints either. They had to put some drops on my fingers that would raise the ridges, and then they could get prints.
They MUST have better machines now! In cop shows, they fingerprint corpses, so temperature must no longer be an issue.
“Anything less than 100% completely exonerates me.”
Tell it to the jury.
You seem to believe that DNA testing is perfect.
It’s never 100%. The more cops rely on database dragnets, the more of a problem there is going to be.
Here’s a paragraph from the article I linked to that might shed some light. The article is dense but you can get the gist of it:
“Consider, for example, the hypothetical cases illustrated in Table
1 in which the prior odds that the suspect is the source of an evidentiary
sample are 1:1000 and the random match probability is
one in one billion (109). If the probability of a false positive is
zero, then the posterior odds are a million to one in favor of the suspect
being the source, which certainly seems high enough to justify
confidence in that conclusion. In other words, the DNA evidence
has more than enough probative value to make up for the low prior
probability. However, if the false positive probability is even 1 in
10,000, the posterior odds in favor of the suspect being the source
are reduced drastically to only 10:1. It is very important for those
evaluating DNA evidence to understand that a false positive probability
on the order of 1 in 10,000, which may seem low enough to
be “safe,” may nevertheless undermine the value of a one-in-a-billion
DNA match sufficiently that, when combined with a low prior
probability, there is still room for doubt about whether the suspect
is the source of the matching sample.”
Sweet dreams.
So I’m supposed to worry about an extremely low probability of a false positive, combined with a crime scene that I have access to, combined with me having a motive to commit that crime and having some connection to the instruments used to commit that crime.
You’re right, this can and does happen to someone in this country, maybe even once a year. Odds one in 300+ million per year...yawn...it’s making me sleepy. Goodnight Honey...
I must admit, I did the ancestry.com DNA test.
And it provided me with a lot of insight about my family tree, which I’ve traced back to around the year 1000 in England.
But this price now?
Well, it is already done.
Wow. You and I must be related. I got that same email just the other day!
I had done a lot of genealogy and had traced relatives back to the UK, Jamestown, Mayflower and pre revolutionary war.
A sibling has a daughter really into genealogy, and the sib paid for a year of Ancestor.com and a DNA test as a gift to me, this past Christmas.
My wife and I are basically in our 80’s and our adult children are in their 50’s. So, we discussed if they were okay with me doing the DNA testing.
Everyone said to do it, and I did this spring. My DNA has identified a few hundred living cousins, which we knew nothing about.
In about 6 months, my ancestral DNA printout has shifted from a fairly wide balance to basically UK/Scotland/Ireland and North west Europe, mainly France, Germany and Switzerland. My DNA didn’t change, but the # of DNA donors @ Ancestry.com has increased in size. I don’t really understand this, but that is what Ancestor.com has told us.
The Goode Ship Lyon, Master and Captain William Pierce, 1630-1635.
Ufford arrived on the good ship Lyon in September 1632 and was met in Boston by Winthrop himself. Roger Terrill, a young 18 YO on the ship, married Ufford's daughter Abigail who was also on the trip (I wonder what REALLY happened on the voyage?).
They all went on with William Pynchon to found the city of Springfield, Massachusetts in 1636, and then found and settled the city of Milford in 1639. Here's a marker on their grave:
I should have said Milford, Connecticut. That was, in 1639, part of the New Haven colony and settled as a bulwark against the Dutch in New Amsterdam.
Thanks, we both have some good DNA from our ancestors.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.