Search

The reporting of a likelihood ratio (LR) calculated from probabilistic genotyping software has become more popular since 2015 and has allowed for the use of more complex mixtures at court. The meaning of "inconclusive" LRs and how to communicate the significance of low LRs at court is now important. We present a method here using the distribution of LRs obtained from nondonors. The nondonor distribution is useful for examining calibration and discrimination for profiles that have produced LRs less than about 104 . In this paper, a range of mixed DNA profiles of varying quantity were constructed and the LR distribution considering the minor contributor for a number of nondonors was compared to the expectation given a calibrated system. It is demonstrated that conditioning genotypes should be used where reasonable given the background information to decrease the rate of nondonor LRs above 1. In all 17 cases examined, the LR for the minor donor was higher than the nondonor LRs, and in 12 of the 17 cases, the 99.9 percentile of the nondonor distribution was lower when appropriate conditioning information was used. The output of the tool is a graph that can show the position of the LR for the person of interest set against the nondonor LR distribution. This may assist communication between scientists and the court.

Stiffelman [1] gives a broad critique of the application of likelihood ratios (LRs) in forensic science, in particular their use in probabilistic genotyping (PG) software. These are discussed in this review. LRs do not infringe on the ultimate issue. The Bayesian paradigm clearly separates the role of the scientist from that of the decision makers and distances the scientist from comment on the ultimate and subsidiary issues. LRs do not affect the reasonable doubt standard. Fact finders must still make decisions based on all the evidence and they must do this considering all evidence, not just that given probabilistically. LRs do not infringe on the presumption of innocence. The presumption of innocence does not equate with a prior probability of zero but simply that the person of interest (POI) is no more likely than anyone else to be the donor. Propositions need to be exhaustive within the context of the case. That is, propositions deemed relevant by either defense or prosecution which are not fanciful must not be omitted from consideration.

We report a large compilation of the internal validations of the probabilistic genotyping software STRmix™. Thirty one laboratories contributed data resulting in 2825 mixtures comprising three to six donors and a wide range of multiplex, equipment, mixture proportions and templates. Previously reported trends in the LR were confirmed including less discriminatory LRs occurring both for donors and non-donors at low template (for the donor in question) and at high contributor number. We were unable to isolate an effect of allelic sharing. Any apparent effect appears to be largely confounded with increased contributor number.

In response to requests from the forensic community, commercial companies are generating larger, more sensitive, and more discriminating STR multiplexes. These multiplexes are now applied to a wider range of samples including complex multi-person mixtures. In parallel there is an overdue reappraisal of profile interpretation methodology. Aspects of this reappraisal include 1. The need for a quantitative understanding of allele and stutter peak heights and their variability, 2. An interest in reassessing the utility of smaller peaks below the often used analytical threshold, 3. A need to understand not just the occurrence of peak drop-in but also the height distribution of such peaks, and 4. A need to understand the limitations of the multiplex-interpretation strategy pair implemented. In this work we present a full scheme for validation of a new multiplex that is suitable for informing modern interpretation practice. We predominantly use GlobalFiler™ as an example multiplex but we suggest that the aspects investigated here are fundamental to introducing any multiplex in the modern interpretation environment.

The interpretation of complex DNA profiles is facilitated by a Bayesian approach. This approach requires the development of a pair of propositions: one aligned to the prosecution case and one to the defense case. This note explores the issue of proposition setting in an adversarial environment by a series of examples. A set of guidelines generalize how to formulate propositions when there is a single person of interest and when there are multiple individuals of interest. Additional explanations cover how to handle multiple defense propositions, relatives, and the transition from subsource level to activity level propositions. The propositions depend on case information and the allegations of each of the parties. The prosecution proposition is usually known. The authors suggest that a sensible proposition is selected for the defense that is consistent with their stance, if available, and consistent with a realistic defense if their position is not known.

Modern probabilistic genotyping (PG) software is capable of modeling stutter as part of the profile weighting statistic. This allows for peaks in stutter positions to be considered as allelic or stutter or both. However, prior to running any sample through a PG calculator, the examiner must first interpret the sample, considering such things as artifacts and number of contributors (NOC or N). Stutter can play a major role both during the assignment of the number of contributors, and the assessment of inclusion and exclusion. If stutter peaks are not filtered when they should be, it can lead to the assignment of an additional contributor, causing N contributors to be assigned as N + 1. If peaks in the stutter position of a major contributor are filtered using a threshold that is too high, true alleles of minor contributors can be lost. Until now, the software used to view the electropherogram stutter filters are based on a locus specific model. Combined stutter peaks occur when a peak could be the result of both back stutter (stutter one repeat shorter than the allele) and forward stutter (stutter one repeat unit larger than the allele). This can challenge existing filters. We present here a novel stutter filter model in the ArmedXpert™ software package that uses a linear model based on allele for back stutter and applies an additive filter for combined stutter. We term this the allele specific stutter model (AM). We compared AM with a traditional model based on locus specific stutter filters (termed LM). This improved stutter model has the benefit of: Instances of over filtering were reduced 78% from 101 for a traditional model (LM) to 22 for the allele specific model (AM) when scored against each other. Instances of under filtering were reduced 80% from 85 (LM) to 17 (AM) when scored against ground truth mixtures.