Use of prior odds for missing persons identifications

Identification of missing persons from mass disasters is based on evaluation of a number of variables and observations regarding the combination of features derived from these variables. DNA typing now is playing a more prominent role in the identification of human remains, and particularly so for highly decomposed and fragmented remains. The strength of genetic associations, by either direct or kinship analyses, is often quantified by calculating a likelihood ratio. The likelihood ratio can be multiplied by prior odds based on nongenetic evidence to calculate the posterior odds, that is, by applying Bayes' Theorem, to arrive at a probability of identity. For the identification of human remains, the path creating the set and intersection of variables that contribute to the prior odds needs to be appreciated and well defined. Other than considering the total number of missing persons, the forensic DNA community has been silent on specifying the elements of prior odds computations. The variables include the number of missing individuals, eyewitness accounts, anthropological features, demographics and other identifying characteristics. The assumptions, supporting data and reasoning that are used to establish a prior probability that will be combined with the genetic data need to be considered and justified. Otherwise, data may be unintentionally or intentionally manipulated to achieve a probability of identity that cannot be supported and can thus misrepresent the uncertainty with associations. The forensic DNA community needs to develop guidelines for objectively computing prior odds.

[1]  B S Weir,et al.  Issues and strategies in the DNA identification of World Trade Center victims. , 2003, Theoretical population biology.

[2]  G. Lau,et al.  After the Indian Ocean tsunami: Singapore's contribution to the international disaster victim identification effort in Thailand. , 2005, Annals of the Academy of Medicine, Singapore.

[3]  C. Li,et al.  The Derivation of Joint Distribution and Correlation between Relatives by the Use of Stochastic Matrices , 1954 .

[4]  J Drábek,et al.  Validation of software for calculating the likelihood ratio for parentage and kinship. , 2009, Forensic science international. Genetics.

[5]  Martial Saugy,et al.  A forensic approach to the interpretation of blood doping markers , 2008 .

[6]  Christophe Champod,et al.  Value of DNA Tests: A Decision Perspective , 2007, Journal of forensic sciences.

[7]  Benoît Leclair,et al.  Enhanced kinship analysis and STR-based DNA typing for human identification in mass fatality incidents: the Swissair flight 111 disaster. , 2004, Journal of forensic sciences.

[8]  Didier Meuwly,et al.  The inference of identity in forensic speaker recognition , 2000, Speech Commun..

[9]  M. Holland,et al.  Mitochondrial DNA sequence analysis of human skeletal remains: identification of remains from the Vietnam War. , 1993, Journal of forensic sciences.

[10]  T Egeland,et al.  Beyond traditional paternity and identification cases. Selecting the most probable pedigree. , 2000, Forensic science international.

[11]  E A Thompson,et al.  The estimation of pairwise relationships , 1975, Annals of human genetics.

[12]  F Taroni,et al.  Equal prior probabilities: can one do any better? , 2007, Forensic science international.

[13]  R. Chakraborty,et al.  DNA identification by pedigree likelihood ratio accommodating population substructure and mutations , 2010, Investigative Genetics.

[14]  A. Dawid,et al.  Non-fatherhood or mutation? A probabilistic approach to parental exclusion in paternity testing. , 2001, Forensic science international.

[15]  S. Brooks,et al.  Skeletal age determination based on the os pubis: A comparison of the Acsádi-Nemeskéri and Suchey-Brooks methods , 1990 .

[16]  R. Joling.  The time of death. , 1973, Arizona medicine.

[17]  T M Clayton,et al.  Identification of bodies from the scene of a mass disaster using DNA amplification of short tandem repeat (STR) loci. , 1995, Forensic science international.

[18]  Bruce Budowle,et al.  Forensic aspects of mass disasters: strategic considerations for DNA-based human identification. , 2005, Legal medicine.

[19]  J. Buckleton,et al.  Forensic DNA Evidence Interpretation , 2004 .

[20]  J Mortera,et al.  Object-oriented Bayesian networks for complex forensic DNA profiling problems. , 2007, Forensic science international.

[21]  Alex Biedermann,et al.  Reply to Budowle, Ge, Chakraborty and Gill-King: use of prior odds for missing persons identifications , 2012, Investigative Genetics.

[22]  K. Sakaue.  Application of the Suchey–Brooks system of pubic age estimation to recent Japanese skeletal material , 2006 .

[23]  V. Dimaio,et al.  Handbook of forensic pathology , 2006 .

[24]  C. Champod,et al.  Forensic medicine, PCR, and Bayesian approach. , 1994, Journal of medical genetics.

[25]  E. Huffine,et al.  Mass identification of persons missing from the break-up of the former Yugoslavia: structure, function, and role of the International Commission on Missing Persons. , 2001, Croatian medical journal.

[26]  B. Anderson.  Statistical basis for positive identification in forensic anthropology. , 2007, American journal of physical anthropology.

[27]  Robert C Shaler,et al.  World Trade Center human identification project: experiences with individual body identification cases. , 2003, Croatian medical journal.

[28]  D Katz,et al.  Race differences in pubic symphyseal aging patterns in the male. , 1989, American journal of physical anthropology.

[29]  W R Mayr,et al.  DNA Commission of the International Society for Forensic Genetics (ISFG): recommendations regarding the role of forensic genetics for disaster victim identification (DVI). , 2007, Forensic science international. Genetics.

[30]  W. Fung,et al.  Power of exclusion revisited: probability of excluding relatives of the true father from paternity , 2002, International Journal of Legal Medicine.

[31]  D. Katz,et al.  Age determination of the male os pubis. , 1986, American journal of physical anthropology.

[32]  J A Lambert,et al.  The impact of the principles of evidence interpretation on the structure and content of statements. , 2000, Science & justice : journal of the Forensic Science Society.

[33]  M. Micozzi,et al.  Evaluation of cast methods for estimating age from the os pubis. , 1992, Journal of forensic sciences.

[34]  H. D. Cash,et al.  Development Under Extreme Conditions: Forensic Bioinformatics in the Wake of the World Trade Center Disaster , 2002, Pacific Symposium on Biocomputing.

[35]  R. Chakraborty,et al.  Pedigree likelihood ratio for lineage markers , 2011, International Journal of Legal Medicine.

[36]  C. Triggs,et al.  Disaster Victim Identification, Identification of Missing Persons, and Immigration Cases , 2004 .

[37]  Jože Balažic,et al.  Molecular genetic identification of skeletal remains from the Second World War Konfin I mass grave in Slovenia , 2010, International Journal of Legal Medicine.

[38]  D J Balding,et al.  DNA profile match probability calculation: how to allow for population stratification, relatedness, database selection and single bands. , 1994, Forensic science international.

[39]  M. Dembo,et al.  Time of Death , 2001 .

[40]  Bruce Budowle,et al.  DNA Identifications After the 9/11 World Trade Center Attack , 2005, Science.

[41]  J. Ballantyne.  Mass disaster genetics , 1997, Nature Genetics.

[42]  I. Evett,et al.  The nature of forensic science opinion--a possible framework to guide thinking and practice in investigations and in court proceedings. , 2006, Science & justice : journal of the Forensic Science Society.

[43]  B. Mevåg,et al.  Identification by DNA analysis of the victims of the August 1996 Spitsbergen civil aircraft disaster , 1997, Nature Genetics.