Suffolk County TrueAllele® Validation

Slides:

Advertisements

Similar presentations

Overcoming DNA Stochastic Effects 2010 NEAFS & NEDIAI Meeting November, 2010 Manchester, VT Mark W Perlin, PhD, MD, PhD Cybergenetics, Pittsburgh, PA Cybergenetics.

Advertisements

Forensic DNA Inference ICFIS 2008 Lausanne, Switzerland Mark W Perlin, PhD, MD, PhD Joseph B Kadane, PhD Robin W Cotton, PhD Cybergenetics ©

DNA Mixture Interpretations and Statistics – To Include or Exclude Cybergenetics © Prescription for Criminal Justice Forensics ABA Criminal Justice.

New York State Police TrueAllele ® Casework Developmental Validation Cybergenetics © New York State DNA Subcommittee March, 2010.

Finding Truth in DNA Mixture Evidence Innocence Network Conference April, 2013 Charlotte, NC Mark W Perlin, PhD, MD, PhD Cybergenetics, Pittsburgh, PA.

How Inclusion Interpretation of DNA Mixture Evidence Reduces Identification Information American Academy of Forensic Sciences February, 2013 Washington,

Creating informative DNA libraries using computer reinterpretation of existing data Northeastern Association of Forensic Scientists November, 2011 Newport,

How TrueAllele ® Works (Part 3) Kinship, Paternity and Missing Persons Cybergenetics Webinar December, 2014 Mark W Perlin, PhD, MD, PhD Cybergenetics,

Coding a Safer Society through Computer Interpretation of DNA Evidence Cybergenetics © MATLAB Virtual Conference March, 2014 Mark W Perlin, PhD,

Probabilistic Software Workshop September 29, 2014 TrueAllele® Casework Mark W. Perlin, PhD, MD, PhD.

TrueAllele ® Interpretation of DNA Mixture Evidence 9 th International Conference on Forensic Inference and Statistics August, 2014 Leiden University,

TrueAllele ® Casework Validation on PowerPlex ® 21 Mixture Data Australian and New Zealand Forensic Science Society September, 2014 Adelaide, South Australia.

Using TrueAllele ® Casework to Separate DNA Mixtures of Relatives California Association of Criminalists October, 2014 San Francisco, CA Jennifer Hornyak,

Kern Regional Crime Laboratory Laboratory Director: Dr. Kevin W. P. Miller TRUEALLELE® WORK AND WORKFLOW: KERN COUNTY’S FIRST CASES APRIL 23, 2014.

Revolutionising DNA analysis in major crime investigations The Investigator Conferences Green Park Conference Centre May, 2014 Aylesbury, Buckinghamshire.

No DNA Left Behind: When "inconclusive" really means "informative" Schenectady County District Attorney’s Office January, 2014 Mark W Perlin, PhD, MD,

DNA Mixture Statistics Cybergenetics © Spring Institute Commonwealth's Attorney's Services Council Richmond, Virginia March, 2013 Mark W.

More informative DNA identification: Computer reinterpretation of existing data Ria David, PhD Cybergenetics, Pittsburgh, PA Cybergenetics ©

Scientific Validation of Mixture Interpretation Methods 17th International Symposium on Human Identification Sponsored by the Promega Corporation October,

Computer Interpretation of Uncertain DNA Evidence National Institute of Justice Computer v. Human June, 2011 Arlington, VA Mark W Perlin, PhD, MD, PhD.

Using Expert Systems (TrueAllele ® ) for Forensic STR DNA Analysis National Institute of Justice Grantees Meeting 2011 Using Expert Systems (TrueAllele.

How TrueAllele ® Works (Part 2) Degraded DNA and Allele Dropout Cybergenetics Webinar November, 2014 Mark W Perlin, PhD, MD, PhD Cybergenetics, Pittsburgh,

TrueAllele ® Genetic Calculator: Implementation in the NYSP Crime Laboratory NYS DNA Subcommittee May 19, 2010 Barry Duceman, Ph.D New York State Police.

Separating Familial Mixtures, One Genotype at a Time Northeastern Association of Forensic Scientists November, 2014 Hershey, PA Ria David, PhD, Martin.

Cybergenetics Webinar January, 2015 Mark W Perlin, PhD, MD, PhD Cybergenetics, Pittsburgh, PA Cybergenetics © How TrueAllele ® Works (Part 4)

Cross examination Is the DNA a mixture of two or more people? How did you calculate the match statistic? What is the scientific basis of that calculation?

Unleashing Forensic DNA through Computer Intelligence Forensics Europe Expo Forensic Innovation Conference April, 2013 London, UK Mark W Perlin, PhD, MD,

Rapid DNA Response: On the Wings of TrueAllele Mid-Atlantic Association of Forensic Scientists May, 2015 Cambridge, Maryland Martin Bowkley, Matthew Legler,

Getting Past First Bayes with DNA Mixtures American Academy of Forensic Sciences February, 2014 Seattle, WA Mark W Perlin, PhD, MD, PhD Cybergenetics,

Compute first, ask questions later: an efficient TrueAllele ® workflow Midwestern Association of Forensic Scientists October, 2014 St. Paul, MN Martin.

TrueAllele ® interpretation of Allegheny County DNA mixtures Cybergenetics © Continuing Legal Education Allegheny County Courthouse February,

Virginia TrueAllele ® Validation Study: Casework Comparison Presented at AAFS, February, 2013 Published in PLOS ONE, March, 2014 Mark W Perlin, PhD, MD,

TrueAllele ® Computing: All the DNA, all the time Continuing Professional Development Sydney, Australia March, 2014 Mark W Perlin, PhD, MD, PhD Cybergenetics,

Murder in McKeesport October 25, 2008 Tamir Thomas.

Open Access DNA Database Duquesne University March, 2013 Pittsburgh, PA Mark W Perlin, PhD, MD, PhD Cybergenetics, Pittsburgh, PA Cybergenetics ©

Objective DNA Mixture Information in the Courtroom: Relevance, Reliability & Acceptance NIST International Symposium on Forensic Science Error Management:

DNA Identification: Quantitative Data Modeling Cybergenetics © Mark W Perlin, PhD, MD, PhD Cybergenetics, Pittsburgh, PA TrueAllele ® Lectures.

Data summary – “alleles” Threshold Over threshold, peaks are labeled as allele events All-or-none allele peaks, each given equal status Allele Pair 8,

Seventh Annual Prescriptions for Criminal Justice Forensics Program Fordham University School of Law June 3, 2016 DNA Panel.

Four person DNA mixture

A Match Likelihood Ratio for DNA Comparison

Overcoming Bias in DNA Mixture Interpretation

Validating TrueAllele® genotyping on ten contributor DNA mixtures

Error in the likelihood ratio: false match probability

Explaining the Likelihood Ratio in DNA Mixture Interpretation

DNA identification pathway

Distorting DNA evidence: methods of math distraction

On the threshold of injustice: manipulating DNA evidence

Virginia TrueAllele® Validation Study: Casework Comparison

Mark W Perlin, PhD, MD, PhD Cybergenetics, Pittsburgh, PA, USA

American Academy of Forensic Sciences Criminalistics Section

Solving Crimes using MCMC to Analyze Previously Unusable DNA Evidence

Investigative DNA Databases that Preserve Identification Information

DNA Identification: Inclusion Genotype and LR

New York State Police TrueAllele® Validation

Mark W Perlin, PhD, MD, PhD Cybergenetics, Pittsburgh, PA, USA

DNA Identification: Biology and Information

DNA Identification: Biology and Information

Forensic match information: exact calculation and applications

severed carotid artery

Question What is a threshold? Cybergenetics ©

DNA identification pathway

Forensic validation, error and reporting: a unified approach

DNA Identification: Biology and Information

DNA Identification: Mixture Interpretation

Exonerating the Innocent with Probabilistic Genotyping

Testifying about probabilistic genotyping results

David W. Bauer1, PhD Nasir Butt2, PhD Jeffrey Oblock2

Using probabilistic genotyping to distinguish family members

Reporting match error: casework, validation & language

Presentation transcript:

Suffolk County TrueAllele® Validation New York State DNA Subcommittee Joseph Galdi May, 2011 Cybergenetics © 2007-2011

Study Objectives computer interpretation of DNA mixture evidence • objectivity • efficacy • reproducibility • "inconclusive"

Range of Cases

Mixture Items

Interpretation Methods human review • RMP • CPI • "inconclusive" computer review • TrueAllele Casework • probabilistic genotypes • likelihood ratio (LR)

Validation Metrics • all the match statistics are LR numbers • log(LR) is a standard information measure • compare information results with log(LR) Efficacy: average log(LR) value Reproducibility: within-item standard deviation

Data

Mixture Minor mixture = 26%

Genotype locus LR = 15

Match Joint log(LR) = 17.68

Case Results Comparison Human: The data are "consistent with" the suspect. Computer: A match between the evidence and the suspect is 478 quadrillion times more probable than coincidence.

Stratified Information Results

Suffolk Information 25

TrueAllele Information 25 + 27

Conclusions computer interpretation of DNA mixture evidence objective efficacious reproducible "inconclusive"