The 'factor of two' issue in mixed DNA profiles

Journal of Theoretical Biology

Volumn 363, Issue , 2014, Pages 300-306

  Taylor, Duncan ^a,b   Bright, Jo Anne ^c   Buckleton, John ^c  

^a FORENSIC SCIENCE SA   (Australia)

^b FLINDERS UNIVERSITY   (Australia)

^c MT ALBERT RESEARCH CENTRE   (New Zealand)

Author keywords

Forensic DNA interpretation; Hierarchy of propositions; Mixtures

Indexed keywords

DNA;

DNA; EXPERT SYSTEM; GENETIC ANALYSIS; GENOTYPE; HIERARCHICAL SYSTEM; PROBABILITY;

ALLELE; ARTICLE; DNA DETERMINATION; FORENSIC IDENTIFICATION; GENOTYPE; HETEROZYGOTE; PROBABILITY; COMPUTER SIMULATION; DNA FINGERPRINTING; EXPERT SYSTEM; HUMAN; PROCEDURES; STATISTICAL MODEL; THEORETICAL MODEL;

COMPUTER SIMULATION; DNA FINGERPRINTING; EXPERT SYSTEMS; GENOTYPE; HUMANS; LIKELIHOOD FUNCTIONS; MODELS, THEORETICAL;

EID: 84907494844     PISSN: 00225193     EISSN: 10958541     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.jtbi.2014.08.021     Document Type: Article

References (24)

1. Balding D.J. Weight-of-evidence for Forensic DNA Profiles 2005, John Wiley and Sons, Chichester.
2. Balding D.J. Evaluation of mixed-source, low-template DNA profiles in forensic science. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2013, 110:12241-12246.
3. Balding D.J., Buckleton J. Interpreting low template DNA profiles. Forensic Sci. Int. Genet. 2009, 4(1):1-10.
4. Berger C.E.H., et al. Evidence evaluation: a response to the court of appeal judgment in R v T. Sci. Justice 2011, 51(2):43-49.
5. Buckleton J.S., Triggs C.M., Walsh S.J. DNA Evidence 2004, CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida.
6. Cook R., et al. A hierarchy of propositions: Deciding which level to address in casework. Sci. Justice 1998, 38(4):231-240.
7. Cook R., et al. A model for case assessment and interpretation. Sci. Justice 1998, 38(3):151-156.
8. Cowell R.G., Lauritzen S.L., Mortera J. Identification and separation of DNA mixtures using peak area information. Forensic Sci. Int. 2007, 166(1):28-34.
9. Evett I.W. On meaningful questions: a two-trace transfer problem. J. Forensic Sci. Soc. 1987, 27:375-381.
10. Evett I.W., Gill P.D., Lambert J.A. Taking account of peak areas when interpreting mixed DNA profiles. J. Forensic Sci. 1998, 43(1):62-69.
11. Evett I.W., Jackson G., Lambert J.A. More on the hierarchy of propositions: exploring the distinction between explanations and propositions. Sci. Justice 2000, 40(1):3-10.
12. Evett I.W., et al. Interpreting small quantities of DNA: the hierarchy of propositions and the use of Bayesian networks. J. Forensic Sci. 2002, 47(3):520-530.
13. Gill P., et al. Interpreting simple STR mixtures using allelic peak areas. Forensic Sci. Int. 1998, 91:41-53.
14. Gittelson S, et al. Bayesian networks and the value of the evidence for the forensic two-trace transfer problem. J. Forensic Sci. 2012, 57(5):1199-1216.
15. Gittelson S, et al. Modeling the forensic two-trace problem with Bayesian networks. Artif. Intell. Law 2013, 21(2):221-252.
16. Haned H. Forensim: an open-source initiative for the evaluation of statistical methods in forensic genetics. Forensic Sci. Int.: Genet. 2011, 5(4):265-268.
17. Jackson G., et al. The nature of forensic science opinion - a possible framework to guide thinking and practice in investigations and in court proceedings. Sci. Justice- J. Forensic Sci. Soc. 2006, 46(1):33-44.
18. Lohmueller K., Rudin N. Calculating the weight of evidence in low-template forensic DNA casework. J. Forensic Sci. 2013, 58(1):234-259.
19. Meester R., Sjerps M. The evidential value in the DNA database search controversy and the two-stain problem. Biometrics 2003, 59(3):727-732.
20. Perlin M.W., Sinelnikov A. An information gap in DNA evidence interpretation. PLoS One 2009, 4(12):e8327.
21. ® DNA mixture interpretation. J. Forensic Sci. 2011, 56:1430-1447.
22. Taylor D., Bright J.-A., Buckleton J. The interpretation of single source and mixed DNA profiles. Forensic Sci. Int.: Genet. 2013, 7(5):516-528.
23. Triggs C.M., Buckleton J. The two trace transfer problem revisited. Sci. Justice 2003, 43(3):127-134.
24. Triggs, C.M., Buckleton, J.S., 2004. Comment on "Why the effect of prior odds should accompany the likelihood ratio when reporting DNA evidence". In: Meester, R., Sjerps, M. Law, Probability and Risk, vol. 3, 1, pp. 73-82.