{"title":"Y 染色体解释的相关命题。","authors":"Jo-Anne Bright, Mikkel Meyer Andersen, Duncan Taylor, Hannah Kelly, Maarten Kruijver, John Buckleton","doi":"10.1111/1556-4029.15669","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The Y chromosomal haplotype is expected to be identical (or close to, depending on the mutation rate) among a male and many of his paternal relatives. This means that often the same evidential value for the DNA evidence is obtained, whether the true donor or one of his close paternal relatives is compared to a crime sample. Commentators (see for example the UK Forensic Science Regulator or Amorim) have suggested to change the proposition pair to compare the probability of the evidence if the Person of Interest (POI) or one of his close paternal relatives left the DNA to the probability of the evidence if an unrelated male from the population left the DNA. We argue that this is problematic because there is no clear definition of close paternal relatives and truly unrelated males do not exist. Instead, we take a starting point in the traditional proposition pair \"The source of the male DNA is the POI\" versus \"The source of the male DNA is not the POI\" and make the latter one operational by suggesting that it is formulated as \"The source of the male DNA is a random man from the population\". The issue of matching males in the POI's lineage is then addressed either in a comment in the statement or directly through a probability model.</p>","PeriodicalId":94080,"journal":{"name":"Journal of forensic sciences","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Relevant propositions for Y chromosome interpretation.\",\"authors\":\"Jo-Anne Bright, Mikkel Meyer Andersen, Duncan Taylor, Hannah Kelly, Maarten Kruijver, John Buckleton\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/1556-4029.15669\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>The Y chromosomal haplotype is expected to be identical (or close to, depending on the mutation rate) among a male and many of his paternal relatives. This means that often the same evidential value for the DNA evidence is obtained, whether the true donor or one of his close paternal relatives is compared to a crime sample. Commentators (see for example the UK Forensic Science Regulator or Amorim) have suggested to change the proposition pair to compare the probability of the evidence if the Person of Interest (POI) or one of his close paternal relatives left the DNA to the probability of the evidence if an unrelated male from the population left the DNA. We argue that this is problematic because there is no clear definition of close paternal relatives and truly unrelated males do not exist. Instead, we take a starting point in the traditional proposition pair \\\"The source of the male DNA is the POI\\\" versus \\\"The source of the male DNA is not the POI\\\" and make the latter one operational by suggesting that it is formulated as \\\"The source of the male DNA is a random man from the population\\\". The issue of matching males in the POI's lineage is then addressed either in a comment in the statement or directly through a probability model.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":94080,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of forensic sciences\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-17\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of forensic sciences\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1111/1556-4029.15669\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of forensic sciences","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/1556-4029.15669","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
预计男性及其许多父系亲属的 Y 染色体单倍型是相同的(或接近相同,取决于突变率)。这意味着,无论将真正的捐献者或其父系近亲之一与犯罪样本进行比较,通常都能获得相同的 DNA 证据价值。有评论者(如英国法医学监管机构或阿莫林)建议改变命题对,将利益相关者(POI)或其父系近亲之一留下DNA的证据概率与人群中无血缘关系男性留下DNA的证据概率进行比较。我们认为这是有问题的,因为父系近亲没有明确的定义,而且真正没有血缘关系的男性并不存在。相反,我们以 "男性 DNA 的来源是 POI "与 "男性 DNA 的来源不是 POI "这一对传统命题为出发点,建议将后一个命题表述为 "男性 DNA 的来源是人群中的随机男性",从而使后一个命题具有可操作性。然后,POI 的血统中与男性相匹配的问题就可以通过声明中的注释或直接通过概率模型来解决。
Relevant propositions for Y chromosome interpretation.
The Y chromosomal haplotype is expected to be identical (or close to, depending on the mutation rate) among a male and many of his paternal relatives. This means that often the same evidential value for the DNA evidence is obtained, whether the true donor or one of his close paternal relatives is compared to a crime sample. Commentators (see for example the UK Forensic Science Regulator or Amorim) have suggested to change the proposition pair to compare the probability of the evidence if the Person of Interest (POI) or one of his close paternal relatives left the DNA to the probability of the evidence if an unrelated male from the population left the DNA. We argue that this is problematic because there is no clear definition of close paternal relatives and truly unrelated males do not exist. Instead, we take a starting point in the traditional proposition pair "The source of the male DNA is the POI" versus "The source of the male DNA is not the POI" and make the latter one operational by suggesting that it is formulated as "The source of the male DNA is a random man from the population". The issue of matching males in the POI's lineage is then addressed either in a comment in the statement or directly through a probability model.