Replies

Also on the stand Wednesday, was DNA analyst, Mitchell Holland, from Bode Technologies in Virginia. He testified that the blond hair found in the bathroom sink of Westerfield's motorhome matches the DNA of Danielle van Dam. Holland also testified that DNA extracted from a bloodstain in David Westerfield's motorhome matches the profile of the 7-year-old victim. Regarding the hair, Holland said the chances are "one in 25 quadrillion" of selecting a person at random from the Caucasian population who would have the same DNA. When asked about the bloodstain, Holland told prosecutors that the chances were "one in 660 quadrillion" of selecting a person at random from the Caucasian population who would have the same DNA. "Is this an example where samples match?" asked the prosecution. "Yes, it is," Holland answered. The expert testified that he performed mitochondrial DNA testing, which is different from nuclear DNA testing, on hairs found on clothing in Westerfield's washing machine, dryer and sheets from his master bedroom in Sabre Springs. Holland said he could not exclude Danielle van Dam as the donor of the hairs in question.

http://www.kfmb.com/topstory.php?storyID=9489

The way I read this it appears the hair in the Motorhome was diffently Danielle's but the hairs found in the washing machine, dryer and sheets from Westerfields master bedroom THEY COULD NOT EXCLUDE THEM AS HAVING BEEN DANIELLE'S SO IT IS POSSIBLE THEY WERE SOMEONE ELSE'S.

Holland said he could not exclude Danielle van Dam as the donor of the hairs in question.

Tricky wording, IMO. Is there anyone else whom "he could not exclude"? Could he "not exclude" BVD, or the VD boys? Could he "not exclude" any particular one of millions of people? Who could he "include"? And the phrase "selected at random" is not the same as "selected from a group comrising x,y,z".

DNA comparison and identification holds some promising possibilities for the criminal justice system, and for society; however, like any tool, it is only as reliable as the person, or people, using it and presenting the findings.

Also on the stand Wednesday, was DNA analyst, Mitchell Holland, from Bode Technologies in Virginia. He testified that the blond hair found in the bathroom sink of Westerfield's motorhome matches the DNA of Danielle van Dam. Holland also testified that DNA extracted from a bloodstain in David Westerfield's motorhome matches the profile of the 7-year-old victim. Regarding the hair, Holland said the chances are "one in 25 quadrillion" of selecting a person at random from the Caucasian population who would have the same DNA. When asked about the bloodstain, Holland told prosecutors that the chances were "one in 660 quadrillion" of selecting a person at random from the Caucasian population who would have the same DNA. "Is this an example where samples match?" asked the prosecution. "Yes, it is," Holland answered.

I am glad you posted this SPUNKY.

NOW, it is one thing when the Prosecutor asks questions to get a desired answer. It is another if you ask if different question. (why didn't Feldman, I don't know).

DNA extracted from a bloodstain in David Westerfield's motorhome matches the profile of the 7-year-old victim.

Matches the PROFILE, meaning it would MATCH her MOTHER or BROTHERS ALSO.

Regarding the hair, Holland said the chances are "one in 25 quadrillion" of selecting a person at random from the Caucasian population who would have the same DNA.

So, what would happen if we picked a person, but NOT AT RANDOM? What if we picked her MOTHER? Would the DNA be a match?

"Is this an example where samples match?" asked the prosecution. "Yes, it is," Holland answered.

YES, the example of ONE IN 660 QUADRILLION is used for where samples match, and we take a random person from the population. However it you don't select at random, then the number goes down and a match could be made for more persons if in the same bloodline.