DNA evidence: wrong answers or wrong questions?

  • Bernard Robertson
  • G. A. Vignaux
Part of the Contemporary Issues in Genetics and Evolution book series (CIGE, volume 4)


Much of the controversy over DNA evidence is due to the way in which forensic scientific evidence has classically been presented. The orthodox approach is to consider whether two samples match according to a predetermined criterion. If they do, the fact of match is reported along with an estimate of the frequency of the characteristics. This method fails to address the questions raised in court cases, diverts argument into irrelevancies and stultifies research. Presentation of evidence in the form of likelihood ratios, on the other hand, forces the witness to answer the questions the court is interested in and makes apparent lines of research required to increase our understanding.

Key words

DNA forensic science significance tests likelihood ratios Abstract 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Balding, D.I. & R.A. Nichols, 1994. DNA Profile Match Probability Calculation: how to allow for population stratification, relat-edness, database selection and single bands. Forensic Science International 64: 125 - 140.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Essen-Möller, E, 1938. Die Biesweiskraft der Ähnlichkeit im Vater Schaftsnachweis; Theoretische Grundlagen. Mitt Anthorop, Ges (Wein) 68: 598.Google Scholar
  3. Evett, I., 1986. A Bayesian Approach to the problem of interpreting glass evidence in forensic science casework. Journal of the Forensic Science Society 26: 3 - 18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Evert, I., 1987. On meaningful questions: a two-trace transfer problem. Journal of the Forensic Science Society 27: 375 - 381.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Evert, I., 1991. Interpretation: a personal odyssey. pp 9 - 22 in C.G.G. Aitken & D.A. Stoney (eds) The use of statistics in forensic science. Ellis Horwood, Chichester UK.Google Scholar
  6. Evert, I. & J. Buckleton, 1990. The interpretation of glass evidence. A practical approach. Journal of the Forensic Science Society 30: 215–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Evert, LW., C. Buffery, G. Willott & D. Stoney, 1991. A guide to interpreting single locus profiles of DNA mixtures in forensic cases. Journal Forensic Science Society 31: 41 - 47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Evert, LW., J. Scranage & R. Pinchin, 1993. An illustration of the advantages of efficient statistical methods for RFLP analysis in forensic science. Am. J. Human Genetics 52: 498 - 505.Google Scholar
  9. Grubb, A. & D.S. Pearl, 1990. Blood Testing, AIDS and DNA Profiling; Law and Policy. Jordan and Sons Ltd, Bristol.Google Scholar
  10. Kaye, D., 1989. The probability of an ultimate issue; the strange cases of paternity testing. Iowa Law Review 1: 75 - 109.Google Scholar
  11. Koehler, J.J., 1992. Probabilities in the Courtroom: An Evaluation of Objections and Policies. pp. 167–183 in D.K.Google Scholar
  12. Kagehiro & W.S. Laufer (eds), Handbook of Psychology and Law. Springer-Verlag, New York.Google Scholar
  13. Lindley, D., 1977. A problem in forensic science. Biometrika 64: 207 - 213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Magnusson, E., 1993. Incomprehension and Miscomprehension of statistical evidence: an experimental study, Australian Institute of Criminology Conference on Law, Medicine and Criminal Justice, Queensland, July 1993.Google Scholar
  15. McQuillan, J. & K. Edgar, 1992. A survey of the distribution of glass on clothing. Journal of the Forensic Science Society 32: 333 - 348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Mills, H., 1991. The Birmingham Six Case - Vital Scientific Evidence Kept From Defence. The (London) Independent, 28 March 1991, p 2.Google Scholar
  17. National Research Council, 1992. DNA Technology in forensic science. National Academy of Sciences.Google Scholar
  18. Pearson, E.F., R.W. May & M.G.D. Dabbs, 1971. Glass and paint fragments found in men’s outer clothing - a report of a survey. Journal of Forensic Sciences 13: 283 - 302.Google Scholar
  19. Thompson, W.C. & E. L. Schumann, 1987. Interpretation of statistical evidence in criminal trials/The prosecutor’s fallacy and the defense attorney’s fallacy. Law and Human Behaviour 11: 167 - 187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Walsh, K.A.J. & J.S. Buckleton, 1986. On the Problem of Assessing the Evidential Value of Glass Fragments Embedded in Footwear. Journal of the Forensic Science Society 26: 55 - 60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 1995

Authors and Affiliations

  • Bernard Robertson
    • 1
  • G. A. Vignaux
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Business LawMassey UniversityPalmerston NorthNew Zealand
  2. 2.Institute of Statistics and Operations ResearchVictoria University of WellingtonWellingtonNew Zealand

Personalised recommendations