DNA Identification: Biology and Information

Slides:

Advertisements

Similar presentations

DNA Identification: Mixture Weight & Inference

Advertisements

Overcoming DNA Stochastic Effects 2010 NEAFS & NEDIAI Meeting November, 2010 Manchester, VT Mark W Perlin, PhD, MD, PhD Cybergenetics, Pittsburgh, PA Cybergenetics.

Sherlock Holmes and the DNA Likelihood Ratio American Academy of Forensic Sciences February, 2011 Chicago, IL Mark W Perlin, PhD, MD, PhD Cybergenetics,

Forensic DNA Inference ICFIS 2008 Lausanne, Switzerland Mark W Perlin, PhD, MD, PhD Joseph B Kadane, PhD Robin W Cotton, PhD Cybergenetics ©

Finding Truth in DNA Mixture Evidence Innocence Network Conference April, 2013 Charlotte, NC Mark W Perlin, PhD, MD, PhD Cybergenetics, Pittsburgh, PA.

How Inclusion Interpretation of DNA Mixture Evidence Reduces Identification Information American Academy of Forensic Sciences February, 2013 Washington,

Creating informative DNA libraries using computer reinterpretation of existing data Northeastern Association of Forensic Scientists November, 2011 Newport,

How TrueAllele ® Works (Part 3) Kinship, Paternity and Missing Persons Cybergenetics Webinar December, 2014 Mark W Perlin, PhD, MD, PhD Cybergenetics,

How TrueAllele® Works (Part 1)

TrueAllele ® Casework Validation on PowerPlex ® 21 Mixture Data Australian and New Zealand Forensic Science Society September, 2014 Adelaide, South Australia.

Using TrueAllele ® Casework to Separate DNA Mixtures of Relatives California Association of Criminalists October, 2014 San Francisco, CA Jennifer Hornyak,

Other DNA Issues Harry R Erwin, PhD CIS308 Faculty of Applied Sciences University of Sunderland.

Revolutionising DNA analysis in major crime investigations The Investigator Conferences Green Park Conference Centre May, 2014 Aylesbury, Buckinghamshire.

Revolutionising DNA analysis in major crime investigations The Investigator Conferences Green Park Conference Centre May, 2014 Aylesbury, Buckinghamshire.

DNA Mixture Statistics Cybergenetics © Spring Institute Commonwealth's Attorney's Services Council Richmond, Virginia March, 2013 Mark W.

Scientific Validation of Mixture Interpretation Methods 17th International Symposium on Human Identification Sponsored by the Promega Corporation October,

DNA Identification Science: The Search for Truth Cybergenetics © Summer Research Symposium Duquesne University July, 2010 Mark W Perlin, PhD,

Computer Interpretation of Uncertain DNA Evidence National Institute of Justice Computer v. Human June, 2011 Arlington, VA Mark W Perlin, PhD, MD, PhD.

Touch DNA in the Massereene Attack Cybergenetics © Continuing Legal Education Allegheny County Courthouse February, 2012 Mark W Perlin, PhD,

DNA Identification: Bayesian Belief Update Cybergenetics © TrueAllele ® Lectures Fall, 2010 Mark W Perlin, PhD, MD, PhD Cybergenetics, Pittsburgh,

Challenging DNA Evidence The Fifth Judicial District of Pennsylvania Criminal Division February, 2015 Pittsburgh, PA Mark W Perlin, PhD, MD, PhD Cybergenetics,

How TrueAllele ® Works (Part 2) Degraded DNA and Allele Dropout Cybergenetics Webinar November, 2014 Mark W Perlin, PhD, MD, PhD Cybergenetics, Pittsburgh,

Separating Familial Mixtures, One Genotype at a Time Northeastern Association of Forensic Scientists November, 2014 Hershey, PA Ria David, PhD, Martin.

Cybergenetics Webinar January, 2015 Mark W Perlin, PhD, MD, PhD Cybergenetics, Pittsburgh, PA Cybergenetics © How TrueAllele ® Works (Part 4)

Unleashing Forensic DNA through Computer Intelligence Forensics Europe Expo Forensic Innovation Conference April, 2013 London, UK Mark W Perlin, PhD, MD,

Getting Past First Bayes with DNA Mixtures American Academy of Forensic Sciences February, 2014 Seattle, WA Mark W Perlin, PhD, MD, PhD Cybergenetics,

Compute first, ask questions later: an efficient TrueAllele ® workflow Midwestern Association of Forensic Scientists October, 2014 St. Paul, MN Martin.

Murder in McKeesport October 25, 2008 Tamir Thomas.

DNA Mapping the Crime Scene: Do Computers Dream of Electric Peaks? 23rd International Symposium on Human Identification October, 2012 Nashville, TN Mark.

Mark W Perlin, PhD, MD, PhD Cybergenetics, Pittsburgh, PA Cybergenetics © Duquesne University October, 2015 Pittsburgh, PA What’s in a Match?

Open Access DNA Database Duquesne University March, 2013 Pittsburgh, PA Mark W Perlin, PhD, MD, PhD Cybergenetics, Pittsburgh, PA Cybergenetics ©

Exploring Forensic Scenarios with TrueAllele ® Mixture Automation 59th Annual Meeting American Academy of Forensic Sciences February, 2007 Mark W Perlin,

Objective DNA Mixture Information in the Courtroom: Relevance, Reliability & Acceptance NIST International Symposium on Forensic Science Error Management:

Chapter 23: Evaluation of the Strength of Forensic DNA Profiling Results.

Death Needs Answers: The DNA Evidence Cybergenetics © Andrea Niapas Book Launch Pittsburgh, PA May, 2013 Mark W Perlin, PhD, MD, PhD Cybergenetics,

DNA Identification: Quantitative Data Modeling Cybergenetics © Mark W Perlin, PhD, MD, PhD Cybergenetics, Pittsburgh, PA TrueAllele ® Lectures.

Separating DNA Mixtures by Computer to Identify and Convict a Serial Rapist Mark W Perlin, PhD, MD, PhD Cybergenetics, Pittsburgh, PA Garett Sugimoto,

DNA: TrueAllele® Statistical Analysis, Probabilistic Genotyping

A Match Likelihood Ratio for DNA Comparison

Overcoming Bias in DNA Mixture Interpretation

Validating TrueAllele® genotyping on ten contributor DNA mixtures

Error in the likelihood ratio: false match probability

Explaining the Likelihood Ratio in DNA Mixture Interpretation

Distorting DNA evidence: methods of math distraction

On the threshold of injustice: manipulating DNA evidence

Solving sexual assault cases using DNA mixture evidence

Suffolk County TrueAllele® Validation

American Academy of Forensic Sciences Criminalistics Section

Solving Crimes using MCMC to Analyze Previously Unusable DNA Evidence

Investigative DNA Databases that Preserve Identification Information

DNA Identification: Inclusion Genotype and LR

Forensic Thinking, Fast and Slow

DNA Identification: Stochastic Effects

Mark W Perlin, PhD, MD, PhD Cybergenetics, Pittsburgh, PA, USA

DNA Identification: Biology and Information

Forensic match information: exact calculation and applications

severed carotid artery

Question What is a threshold? Cybergenetics ©

The Triumph and Tragedy of DNA Evidence

Probabilistic Genotyping to the Rescue for Pinkins and Glenn

Genotyping Results Each person was typed for 3 unlinked Short Tandem Repeat loci (STR) vWFII – chromosome 12, intron 40 of the vWF gene UT 2203 – chromosome.

Forensic validation, error and reporting: a unified approach

DNA Transfer for Lawyers

DNA Identification: Biology and Information

DNA Identification: Mixture Interpretation

Testifying about probabilistic genotyping results

David W. Bauer1, PhD Nasir Butt2, PhD Jeffrey Oblock2

Using probabilistic genotyping to distinguish family members

Reporting match error: casework, validation & language

Presentation transcript:

DNA Identification: Biology and Information Mark W Perlin, PhD, MD, PhD Cybergenetics, Pittsburgh, PA Continuing Legal Education Allegheny County Courthouse March, 2011 Cybergenetics © 2003-2011 Cybergenetics © 2007-2010

DNA cell nucleus

DNA chromosomes cell nucleus

DNA chromosomes cell nucleus locus

DNA chromosomes cell nucleus alleles locus Short Tandem Repeat (STR)

DNA chromosomes cell nucleus alleles locus Short Tandem Repeat (STR) genotype 7, 8

Identification Biological evidence

Identification Lab Biological evidence Questioned data 10 12

Identification Lab Infer Biological evidence Questioned data Questioned genotype Q 10, 12 10 12

Identification Lab Infer Biological evidence Questioned data Questioned genotype Q 10, 12 10 12 Compare Suspect genotype S 10, 12

Identification Lab Infer Biological evidence Questioned data Questioned genotype Q 10, 12 10 12 Compare Suspect genotype S Prob(identification) = Prob(suspect matches evidence) = 100% 10, 12

Biological population Coincidence Biological population

Biological population Coincidence Lab Biological population Allele frequency data 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

Coincidence Lab Infer Biological population Allele frequency data Population genotype R 10, 12 @ 5% 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Genotype product rule, combines alleles Prob(10, 12) = 2p10p12 Prob(10, 10) = p10p10

Biological population Coincidence Lab Infer Biological population Allele frequency data Population genotype R 10, 12 @ 5% Compare 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Suspect genotype S 10, 12

Biological population Coincidence Lab Infer Biological population Allele frequency data Population genotype R 10, 12 @ 5% Compare 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Suspect genotype S Prob(coincidence) = Prob(suspect matches population) = 5% 10, 12

Information Likelihood ratio At the suspect's genotype, identification vs. coincidence? after (evidence) Prob(identification) data Prob(coincidence) before (population) Likelihood ratio

Information At the suspect's genotype, identification vs. coincidence? after (evidence) Prob(suspect matches evidence) data Prob(suspect matches population) before (population)

Information At the suspect's genotype, identification vs. coincidence? after (evidence) Prob(suspect matches evidence) 100% data = Prob(suspect matches population) 5% before (population) = 20

Uncertainty Biological evidence +

Uncertainty Lab Biological evidence Questioned data + 10 11 12

Uncertainty Lab Infer Biological evidence Questioned data Questioned genotype Q 10, 12 @ 50% 11, 12 @ 30% 12, 12 @ 20% + 10 11 12

Uncertainty Lab Infer Biological evidence Questioned data Questioned genotype Q 10, 12 @ 50% 11, 12 @ 30% 12, 12 @ 20% + 10 11 12 Compare Suspect genotype S 10, 12

Uncertainty Lab Infer Biological evidence Questioned data Questioned genotype Q 10, 12 @ 50% 11, 12 @ 30% 12, 12 @ 20% + 10 11 12 Compare Prob(identification) = Prob(suspect matches evidence) = 50% Suspect genotype S 10, 12

Information Likelihood ratio At the suspect's genotype, identification vs. coincidence? after (evidence) Prob(identification) data Prob(coincidence) before (population) Likelihood ratio

Information At the suspect's genotype, identification vs. coincidence? after (evidence) Prob(suspect matches evidence) 50% data = Prob(suspect matches population) 5% before (population) = 10