Interpreting forensic DNA profiling evidence without specifying the number of contributors.

DNA profile interpretation has benefitted from recent improvements that use semi-continuous or fully continuous methods to interpret information within an electropherogram. These methods are likelihood ratio based and currently require that a number of contributors be assigned prior to analysis. Often there is ambiguity in the choice of number of contributors, and an analyst is left with the task of determining what they believe to be the most probable number. The choice can be particularly important when the difference between two possible contributor numbers means the difference between excluding a person of interest as being a possible contributor, and producing a statistic that favours their inclusion. Presenting both options in a court of law places the decision with the court. We demonstrate here an MCMC method of correctly weighting analyses of DNA profile data spanning a range of contributors. We explore the theoretical behaviour of such a weight and demonstrate these theories using practical examples. We also highlight the issues with omitting this weight term from the LR calculation when considering different numbers of contributors in the one calculation.

[1]  Martin D. Weinberg,et al.  Computing the Bayes Factor from a Markov chain Monte Carlo Simulation of the Posterior Distribution , 2009, 0911.1777.

[2]  D. Balding.  Evaluation of mixed-source, low-template DNA profiles in forensic science , 2013, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[3]  Duncan Taylor,et al.  The interpretation of single source and mixed DNA profiles. , 2013, Forensic science international. Genetics.

[4]  Carissa M Krane,et al.  Empirical analysis of the STR profiles resulting from conceptual mixtures. , 2005, Journal of forensic sciences.

[5]  Hinda Haned,et al.  Estimating the Number of Contributors to Forensic DNA Mixtures: Does Maximum Likelihood Perform Better Than Maximum Allele Count? , 2011, Journal of forensic sciences.

[6]  Roger W Byard,et al.  Fatal Ischemic Enteritis with Hemorrhage—A Late Complication of Treated Wilms Tumor , 2013, Journal of forensic sciences.

[7]  J. Mortera,et al.  Analysis of forensic DNA mixtures with artefacts , 2013, 1302.4404.

[8]  Mark W. Perlin,et al.  An Information Gap in DNA Evidence Interpretation , 2009, PloS one.

[9]  Norah Rudin,et al.  Calculating the Weight of Evidence in Low‐Template Forensic DNA Casework , 2013, Journal of forensic sciences.

[10]  Jo-Anne Bright,et al.  Determination of the variables affecting mixed MiniFiler™ DNA profiles. , 2011, Forensic science international. Genetics.

[11]  Torben Tvedebrink,et al.  Overdispersion in allelic counts and θ-correction in forensic genetics. , 2009, Theoretical population biology.

[12]  Hinda Haned,et al.  Forensim: an open-source initiative for the evaluation of statistical methods in forensic genetics. , 2011, Forensic science international. Genetics.

[13]  John S Buckleton,et al.  Autosomal microsatellite allele frequencies for a nationwide dataset from the Australian Caucasian sub-population. , 2007, Forensic science international.

[14]  M. P. Baur,et al.  Likelihood ratios for mixed stains when the number of donors cannot be agreed , 2005, International Journal of Legal Medicine.

[15]  M. Perlin,et al.  Validating TrueAllele® DNA Mixture Interpretation * ,† , 2011, Journal of forensic sciences.

[16]  John Buckleton,et al.  Interpreting low template DNA profiles. , 2009, Forensic science international. Genetics.

[17]  Peter Gill,et al.  Towards understanding the effect of uncertainty in the number of contributors to DNA stains. , 2007, Forensic science international. Genetics.

[18]  Jo-Anne Bright,et al.  Examination of the variability in mixed DNA profile parameters for the Identifiler multiplex. , 2010, Forensic science international. Genetics.

[19]  Bruce Budowle,et al.  Mixture Interpretation: Defining the Relevant Features for Guidelines for the Assessment of Mixed DNA Profiles in Forensic Casework * , 2009, Journal of forensic sciences.

[20]  J Buckleton,et al.  An investigation of the rigor of interpretation rules for STRs derived from less than 100 pg of DNA. , 2000, Forensic science international.

[21]  P. Green.  Reversible jump Markov chain Monte Carlo computation and Bayesian model determination , 1995 .

[22]  Torben Tvedebrink.  Overdispersion in allelic counts and θ -correction in forensic genetics , 2009 .

[23]  H Haned,et al.  The predictive value of the maximum likelihood estimator of the number of contributors to a DNA mixture. , 2011, Forensic science international. Genetics.

[24]  Julia Mortera,et al.  Bounding the number of contributors to mixed DNA stains. , 2002, Forensic science international.

[25]  Duncan Taylor,et al.  The 'factor of two' issue in mixed DNA profiles. , 2014, Journal of theoretical biology.

[26]  Ilsang Yoon,et al.  A remarkably simple and accurate method for computing the Bayes Factor from a Markov chain Monte Carlo Simulation of the Posterior Distribution in high dimension , 2013, 1301.3156.

[27]  Duncan Taylor,et al.  Developing allelic and stutter peak height models for a continuous method of DNA interpretation. , 2013, Forensic science international. Genetics.

[28]  Peter Gill,et al.  A comparison of stochastic variation in mixed and unmixed casework and synthetic samples. , 2012, Forensic science international. Genetics.