Posted on 08/07/2002 7:08:12 PM PDT by FresnoDA
And Dusek still follows that recipe! Even his own daddy knew what a jerk his son is.
At one point during his summation, Dusek appeared to be having trouble finding a word and a helpful voice came from the audience to his aid. Brenda van Dam supplied the word. When Feldman objected that the audience was "assisting in closing," Mudd urged the audience to "please remain silent."
Good catch. Thanks. For some reason, my eyes skipped over that and didn't see it. If that happened during the defense's closing, the person would have been arrested probably. What a skank!
Yep.....and Doofus rebutted by telling jurors they should not have an independent opinion and taught them the basics of Blackjack and used car sales.
I'll take unprepared, thank you.
Y-DNA 12 Marker Test: tests the Y chromosome for genetic matches between males. Results are placed in our Y-DNA database and when 2 people show the same identical results, we will inform both parties if they have both signed the FTDNA Release Form. The customer receives a Certificate & report generally describing Y-DNA sequencing and the meaning of the probability between matches.
Y-DNAPlus 25 Marker Test: tests the Y chromosome for genetic matches between males. Results are placed in our Y-DNA database and when 2 people show the same identical or near identical results, we will inform both parties if you have both signed the FTDNA Release Form. A perfect match of 25 markers means a lesser number of generations before a Most Common Recent Ancestor (MRCA) can be determined. The customer receives a Certificate & report generally describing Y-DNA sequencing and the meaning of probability between matches.
Y-DNARefine: This refinement of our 12 marker Y-DNA test dramatically reduces the time (in generations) to the Most Recent Common Ancestor. Y-DNARefine adds 13 additional markers to your previous results without the need for you to provide an additional sample. Therefore it can't be ordered as a stand-alone test without you having previously ordered the Y-DNA test.
(more info at the link)
Using DNA typing in legal suits is controversial in two ways. First, establishing matches between samples collected at a crime scene and those taken from a suspect is problematic. Until recently, there has been little standardization of laboratory criteria for declaring a match (Lander 1991). Similarly, from the perspective of the contestants in a given suit, human error made during the typing process can result in false matches, or in undetected matches. Second, a match is not a conclusive indicator of guilt. Because the molecular markers used in typing are shared among individuals, matches are useful only when the likelihood of being shared is very low. Moreover, this likelihood depends on allele frequencies in a reference population. Because targeted allele frequencies may vary among human populations, controversy surrounds selection of the appropriate reference population. Together, these points of controversy suggest that DNA evidence is not absolutely sufficient, alone, to indicate guilt. This seems trivial; one of the most exacting standards of proof in American jurisprudence is employed in criminal trials, in which proof of guilt is predicted on "reasonable doubt", and which rarely are conducted solely with genetic evidence.
DNA matches are only useful when they are certain, but improving the match determining power of laboratory techniques seems to involve mainly technical issues of standardizing and optimizing them to maximize their reproducibility and minimize opportunities for error. To use those results, however, one must address the chance that an error has occurred yielding either a false match, or failing to detect a true match. False matches seem to elicit more concern than failing to detect a true match. This apparent asymmetry in concern is reflected in our corresponding biased tolerance of the consequences of an error: in the case of a false match, for the accused; or for an undetected true match, for our system of justice. Despite this asymmetry, we do not employ an ultimate threshold for assigning guilt. Instead, our system allows a malleable standard of innocence: guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The current challenge of DNA evidence is to derive from it an understanding of doubt, not to use it to assign guilt.
Although we may doubt the surety of our methods for detecting all DNA matches, our willingness to tolerate type II errors means that DNA evidence is very useful for establishing innocence. If the DNA of a suspect does not match that collected at a crime scene, we take it as strong support for the suspect's innocence. When the samples do match, we must calculate the likelihood that the match was fortuitous. Essentially, this requires us to evaluate competing hypotheses that either accuse or absolve a suspect, given that the suspect's DNA matches that found at the crime scene. This is done using a likelihood ratio, which employs a Bayesian perspective to modify traditional estimates of error probability, by prior belief about the veracity of the two hypotheses. Traditional estimates of error probability depend on allele frequencies in the reference population and linkage disequilibrium among the several loci that may be used in the analysis. Inbreeding within subgroups of structured population may alter both allele frequencies and linkage disequilibrium. Human populations were until recently probably strongly structured, and the prospect that genetic traces of that structure may persist makes selection of the appropriate reference population theoretically crucial to proper estimating of traditional error probabilities. Interestingly, the sensitivity of these statistical techniques has been shown to be low (as cited in Weir and Evett 1993), by deliberately employing inappropriate reference populations with little effect. If such deliberate misapplications of the methods do not change the outcome of likelihood ratios and ultimately show that doubt in the methods of DNA typing falls within the range of "reasonable", then it seems likely that DNA evidence may be used increasingly in future trials. It may be employed increasingly to assign guilt.
Literature Cited
Lander, E. S. 1991. Lander reply. American Journal of Human Genetics 49:899-903.
Weir, B. S., and I. W. Evett. 1993. Reply to Lewontin. American Journal of Human Genetics 52:206.
Alert.....alert....possible unwound hose.
Well, as a taxpaying Californian, I can say I want my money back.
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.