Genetic matches and the logic of the law.

In a recent article Levine and Kobilinsky (1997) point out that current methods in forensic DNA 'identification' are inadequate because the commercial kits commonly used in forensic practice do not detect the true genotype, but rather a genotype based on convenient categorization. For this reason, Levine and Kobilinsky argue that statistics attached to such categorizations are invalid. The authors believe that the arguments of Levine and Kobilinsky are logically flawed.

DNA evidence: wrong answers or wrong questions?

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.