A mixed DNA profile controversy revisited

Semaan et al. (J Forensic Res, 2020, 11, 453) discuss a mock case “where eight different individuals [P₁ through P₈] could not be excluded in a mixed DNA analysis. Even though … expert DNA mixture analysis software was used.” Two of these are the true donors. The LRs reported are incorrect due to the incorrect entry of propositions into LRmix Studio. This forced the software to account for most of the alleles as drop-in, resulting in LRs 60–70 orders of magnitude larger than expected. P₁, P₂, P₄, P₅, and P₈ can be manually excluded using peak heights. This has relevance when using LRmix which does not use peak heights. We extend the work using the same two reference genotypes who were the true contributors as Semaan et al. (J Forensic Res, 2020, 11, 453). We simulate three two-donor mixtures with peak heights using these two genotypes and analyze using STRmix?. For the simulated 1:1 mixture, one of the non-donors’ LRs supported him being a contributor when no conditioning was used. When considered in combination with any other potential donors (i.e., with conditioning), this non-donor was correctly eliminated. For the 3:1 mixture, all results correctly supported that the non-donors were not contributors. The low-template 4:1 mixture LRs with no conditioning showed support for all eight profiles as donors. However, the results from pair-wise conditioning showed that only the two ground truth donors had LRs supporting that they were contributors to the mixture. We recommend the use of peak heights and conditioning profiles, as this allows better sensitivity and specificity even when the persons share many alleles.     

Implementation of the Belt and Road Initiative in Africa: A Firm-Level Study of Sub-Saharan African SMEs

Journal of Chinese Political Science - Over the past few years, the implementation of the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) has seen a marked increase among state-owned enterprises and large...     

Combating corruption and the role of the judiciary in Nigeria: beyond rhetoric and crassness

The role of the judiciary in combating corruption in Nigeria cannot be overemphasised. However, its ability to combat corruption is a function of the legal and political mechanisms in place. In Nigeria, these mechanisms and their effectiveness in the anti-corruption fight remain thorny issues. The judiciary faces myriad of challenges, ranging from perceived corrupt practices by judicial officers, interference by politicians, and the adjudicatory system in Nigeria. However, we are of the view that the judiciary can perform its role in the anti-corruption fight if its efforts are adequately complemented by legislation.     

Using the Nondonor Distribution to Improve Communication and Inform Decision Making for Low LRs from Minor Contributors in Mixed DNA Profiles

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.     

National origin harassment in the work place: recent guideline developments from the EEOC

In December 1980 the EEOC published its revised "Guidelines on Discrimination Because of National Origin." The revised guidelines expand the definition of national origin harassment and declare it a violation of Title Vii. According to the EEOC, the guidelines reaffirm the position the Commission has taken in earlier decisions. In the following article, the authors examine the EEOC's position on national origin harassment. Using the guidelines as a frame of reference, they look at both EEOC decisions issued prior to the guidelines and court decisions that may offer employers guidance regarding impermissible conduct and liability in this area.     

A Practical Guide for the Formulation of Propositions in the Bayesian Approach to DNA Evidence Interpretation in an Adversarial 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.     

Comparison of the variables affecting the recovery of DNA from common drinking containers

As the boundaries of forensic DNA profiling continue to expand, less obvious sources of biological evidence are being collected at crime scenes for DNA profiling. One example is the recovery of biological evidence from common drink containers, such as bottles and cans, which have been found at crime scenes. There are many variables that may have an impact on recovering a DNA profile from such exhibits. In this research, the effects of person to person variation, time, type of drink (including alcoholic and non-alcoholic beverages), and type of drink container, were assessed for their impact on the major analytical outcomes of the DNA process. The results show that the alpha-amylase activity varies from individual to individual and is reduced in the presence of some alcoholic drinks. A reasonable DNA yield was obtained from all samples, however, the concentrations exhibited significant person to person variation. The type of drink container influenced the DNA yield with cans giving a higher yield than bottles of the same drink type. To a reduced extent the presence or absence of alcohol affected the overall DNA yield and when partial or failed DNA profiles were produced they were more likely to be associated with alcoholic drinks than non-alcoholic drinks.