Blairsville, PA Dentist Dr. John Yelenic

Slides:

Advertisements

Similar presentations

DNA Identification: TrueAllele ® Testimony Cybergenetics © Continuing Legal Education Duquesne University October, 2010 Mark W Perlin, PhD, MD,

Advertisements

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

DNA Mixture Interpretations and Statistics – To Include or Exclude Cybergenetics © Prescription for Criminal Justice Forensics ABA Criminal Justice.

New York State Police TrueAllele ® Casework Developmental Validation Cybergenetics © New York State DNA Subcommittee March, 2010.

TrueAllele ® Challenges in Court and Culture Cybergenetics © th Annual DNA Technology Educational Seminar Centre of Forensic Sciences and the.

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,

Preventing rape in the military through effective DNA computing Forensics Europe Expo Forensics Seminar Theatre April, 2014 London, UK Mark W Perlin, PhD,

Coding a Safer Society through Computer Interpretation of DNA Evidence Cybergenetics © MATLAB Virtual Conference March, 2014 Mark W Perlin, PhD,

TrueAllele ® Interpretation of DNA Mixture Evidence 9 th International Conference on Forensic Inference and Statistics August, 2014 Leiden University,

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,

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

No DNA Left Behind: When "inconclusive" really means "informative" Schenectady County District Attorney’s Office January, 2014 Mark W Perlin, PhD, MD,

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

Solving Cold Cases by TrueAllele ® Analysis of DNA Evidence Finding Closure: The Science, Law and Politics of Cold Case Investigations October, 2014 Pittsburgh,

TrueAllele ® Mixture Interpretation Cybergenetics © th Annual DNA Technology Educational Seminar Centre of Forensic Sciences and the Promega.

More informative DNA identification: Computer reinterpretation of existing data Ria David, PhD Cybergenetics, Pittsburgh, PA Cybergenetics ©

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,

Automated STR Data Analysis: Validation Studies Automated Analysis Databasing Validation Casework Studies Mark W. Perlin (Cybergenetics, Pittsburgh, PA)

TrueAllele ® Modeling of DNA Mixture Genotypes California Association of Crime Laboratory Directors October, 2014 San Francisco, CA Mark W Perlin, PhD,

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

TrueAllele ® Genetic Calculator: Implementation in the NYSP Crime Laboratory NYS DNA Subcommittee May 19, 2010 Barry Duceman, Ph.D New York State Police.

Computer interpretation of touch DNA mixtures Seminar for Chiefs of Police in Western Pennsylvania May, 2014 Allegheny County, PA Mark W Perlin, PhD, MD,

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)

Cross examination Is the DNA a mixture of two or more people? How did you calculate the match statistic? What is the scientific basis of that calculation?

Forensic Science & Criminal Law: Cutting Edge DNA Strategies Pennsylvania Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers September, 2015 Hotel Monaco, Pittsburgh,

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

Rapid DNA Response: On the Wings of TrueAllele Mid-Atlantic Association of Forensic Scientists May, 2015 Cambridge, Maryland Martin Bowkley, Matthew Legler,

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.

TrueAllele ® interpretation of Allegheny County DNA mixtures Cybergenetics © Continuing Legal Education Allegheny County Courthouse February,

Virginia TrueAllele ® Validation Study: Casework Comparison Presented at AAFS, February, 2013 Published in PLOS ONE, March, 2014 Mark W Perlin, PhD, MD,

TrueAllele ® Computing: All the DNA, all the time Continuing Professional Development Sydney, Australia March, 2014 Mark W Perlin, PhD, MD, PhD Cybergenetics,

Murder in McKeesport October 25, 2008 Tamir Thomas.

When Good DNA Goes Bad International Conference on Forensic Research & Technology October, 2012 Chicago, Illinois Mark W Perlin, PhD, MD, PhD Cybergenetics,

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 ©

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

Simple Reporting of Complex DNA Evidence: Automated Computer Interpretation Promega 14th International Symposium on Human Identification Pointe Hilton.

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

Understanding DNA Pennsylvania Conference of State Trial Judges Mid Annual Meeting Administrative Office of Pennsylvania Courts Judicial Education Department.

Data summary – “alleles” Threshold Over threshold, peaks are labeled as allele events All-or-none allele peaks, each given equal status Allele Pair 8,

Issues with DNA Evidence, Past and Future Washington County Bar Association March, 2016 Washington, PA Mark W Perlin, PhD, MD, PhD Cybergenetics, Pittsburgh,

Understanding DNA Evidence Beaver County Courthouse March, 2016 Beaver, PA Mark W Perlin, PhD, MD, PhD Cybergenetics, Pittsburgh, PA Cybergenetics ©

DNA Investigation: Across the Universe Pennsylvania Homicide Investigators Association April, 2016 State College, PA Mark W Perlin, PhD, MD, PhD Cybergenetics,

Four person DNA mixture

A Match Likelihood Ratio for DNA Comparison

Overcoming Bias in DNA Mixture Interpretation

Validating TrueAllele® genotyping on ten contributor DNA mixtures

Explaining the Likelihood Ratio in DNA Mixture Interpretation

On the threshold of injustice: manipulating DNA evidence

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

Suffolk County TrueAllele® Validation

Solving Crimes using MCMC to Analyze Previously Unusable DNA Evidence

Investigative DNA Databases that Preserve Identification Information

DNA Identification: Inclusion Genotype and LR

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

severed carotid artery

TrueAllele® computer technology

DNA Identification: Mixture Interpretation

Exonerating the Innocent with Probabilistic Genotyping

Using probabilistic genotyping to distinguish family members

Reporting match error: casework, validation & language

Presentation transcript:

Blairsville, PA Dentist Dr. John Yelenic

Murder Victim April 2006: Death in home by exsanguination

State Trooper Arrested November 2007: Kevin Foley charged with crime

Fingernail DNA Evidence 93.3% victim + 6.7% DNA component

Three DNA Match Statistics Score Method 13 thousand inclusion 23 million subtraction 189 billion addition • Why are there different match results? • How do mixture interpretation methods differ? • What results should be presented in court? Cybergenetics © 2007-2010

D7S820 victim other Cybergenetics © 2007-2010

Addition Method (TrueAllele) Step 1: infer genotype victim genotype data 8 12 other genotype + 10, 13 ? 10 13 victim other genotype pattern = 8 10 12 13 Cybergenetics © 2007-2010

TrueAllele Preserves Information At the suspect's genotype, identification vs. coincidence? after (evidence) Prob(suspect matches evidence) 100% data = Prob(suspect matches population) 1.72% before (population) = 58 Step 2: match genotype high probability retains LR information

Inclusion Method (CPI) Step 1: infer genotype • apply threshold • discard peak data • make all the same • 10 possible pairs • equal likelihood • diffuse probability • lose match strength cutoff 8 10 12 13 8 10 12 13 8 10 Cybergenetics © 2007-2010

CPI Loses Information At the suspect's genotype, identification vs. coincidence? after (evidence) Prob(suspect matches evidence) 4.42% data = Prob(suspect matches population) 1.72% before (population) = 2.57 Step 2: match genotype lower probability loses LR information

Interpretation: Same Principle DNA data A. Infer genotype Data Model Compare Probability B. Match genotype Likelihood ratio Cybergenetics © 2007-2010

Different Methods Data Used inclusion subtraction addition victim profile NO YES original data Cybergenetics © 2007-2010

Frye: General Acceptance in the Relevant Community • Quantitative STR Peak Information • Genotype Probability Distributions • Computer Interpretation of STR Data • Statistical Modeling and Computation • Likelihood Ratio Literature • Mixture Interpretation Admissibility • Computer Systems for Quantitative DNA Mixture Deconvolution • TrueAllele Casework Publications Cybergenetics © 2007-2010

Validating Mixture Methods Match Score = Information • efficacy • reproducibility Perlin MW. Scientific validation of mixture interpretation methods. Promega's Seventeenth International Symposium on Human Identification, Nashville, TN. 2006. Ranking: 1 Addition 2 Subtraction 3 Inclusion

Validation Study Cybergenetics © 2007-2010

Expected Result 15 loci 12 loci 67 Cybergenetics © 2007-2010

Addition vs. Inclusion Cybergenetics © 2007-2010

Threshold: all or none

Quantitative: shades of gray

Statistical Inference View inclusion vs. likelihood ratio "often robs the items of any probative value" - B. Weir "usually discards a lot of information compared to the correct likelihood ratio approach" - C. Brenner "does not use as much of the information included in the data as the LR approach but, conceptually, they are equivalent" - M. Krawczak "Recommendation 1: The likelihood ratio is the preferred approach to mixture interpretation." - DNA commission of the International Society of Forensic Genetics (2006) Cybergenetics © 2007-2010

Relevant Scientific Community • The forensic scientists who largely focus on DNA inference and statistics. • Develop, discuss, publish, validate & assess DNA interpretation methods. • Implement methods in computer software. • Provide a pallet of interpretation methods for the practitioner to choose from. • Lay the scientific foundation for practitioners. • Give expert backup in court testimony.

Pennsylvania State Police Mixtures with a known contributor • genetic profile of the unknown can be inferred • subtracting the contribution of the known donor • peak height ratios can be used Christine S. Tomsey, et al Forensic DNA Laboratory Croatian Medical Journal, 2001 Cybergenetics © 2007-2010

Interpretation Differs National Institute of Standards and Technology Two Contributor Mixture Data, Known Victim 213 trillion (14) 31 thousand (4) Cybergenetics © 2007-2010

Other Methods are Similar James Curran. "A MCMC method for resolving two person mixtures." Science & Justice. 2008;48(4):168-77.

TrueAllele Users Allegheny County Crime Lab (Forensic Identification) Armed Forces DNA Identification Laboratory (Forensic Identification) DeCode Genetics, Iceland (Genetic Discovery) Forensic Science Service, UK (Forensic Identification) Maryland State Police (Forensic Identification) Marshall University, WV (Forensic Research) Massachusetts State Police (Forensic Identification) National Institutes of Health (Genetic Discovery) New York City OCME (Mass Disaster Forensic Identification) New York State Police (Forensic Identification) Orchid Cellmark - Abingdon, UK (Forensic Identification) Orchid Cellmark - Nashville, USA (Forensic Identification) Puerto Rico Forensic Science Center (Forensic Identification) SmithKline Beecham Pharmaceuticals, UK (Genetic Discovery) University of Pittsburgh (Genetic Counseling, Genetic Discovery)

Other Mixture Systems GeneMapper® ID-X (Applied Biosystems, California) FSS I-3® I-STReam (Forensic Science Service, United Kingdom) TrueAllele® Casework System (Cybergenetics, Pennsylvania) Least Square Deconvolution (University of Tennessee) MAIES (Universities of Oxford and Rome, Cass Business School, London) MCMC-Pendulum (University of Auckland, New Zealand)

Cross Examination • How can reliable DNA give different statistics? • Why doesn't the computer use thresholds? • Has this method ever been used before in court?

TrueAllele Admitted

Trial Testimony • one principle: infer genotype, then match • methods make different use of the data • better data use gives more information • MIX05: huge variation in interpretation • validation study predicts match result

Inclusion DNA Match 13 thousand (4) Cybergenetics © 2007-2010

Subtraction DNA Match 13 thousand (4) 23 million (7) Cybergenetics © 2007-2010

Addition DNA Match 13 thousand (4) 23 million (7) 189 billion (11) Cybergenetics © 2007-2010

Perfect DNA Match 13 thousand (4) 23 million (7) 189 billion (11) 875 trillion (14) Cybergenetics © 2007-2010

Trial Cross Examination • Why are there different statistics? how method uses data, ethnic population, … • Shouldn't the same data give the same answer? microscope analogy for examining same slide • Don't computers need thresholds? that is a human limitation, and is not relevant

Microscope Metaphor "The less informative methods ignored some of the data, while the TrueAllele computation considered all of the available DNA data." "A scientist may look at the same slide using the naked eye, a magnifying glass, or a microscope. A computer that considers all the data is a more powerful DNA microscope."

The Verdict "John Yelenic provided the most eloquent and poignant evidence in this case," said the prosecutor, senior deputy attorney general Anthony Krastek. "He managed to reach out and scratch his assailant," capturing the murderer's DNA under his fingernails. Cybergenetics © 2007-2010

Pennsylvania Precedent • • •

TrueAllele in Pennsylvania 5 trials, 2 exonerations Crime Evidence Defendant Outcome Sentence murder fingernail Kevin Foley guilty life clothing Glenn Lyons death rape Ralph Skundrich awaiting gun, hat Leland Davis 23 years Akaninyene Akan 32 years shotgun shells James Yeckel, Jr. guilty plea 25 years Anthony Morgan stipulation weapons gun Thomas Doswell 1 year drugs Derek McKissick & Steve Morgan guilty pleas 2 1/2 years wood Sherman Holes 10 years