It is notwithstanding all of the below still impossible to have a positive match at gedmatch without being the person being looked for  Not possible You can be a close match and I am all in favor of convicting any murderers in my family  I guess you’re not So scaremongering is the motive of the day  Sent from AOL Mobile Mail Get the new AOL app: mail.mobile.aol.com On Friday, November 30, 2018, Dave Hamm via GENEALOGY-DNA <genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> wrote: Wjhonson, Well, this thread had been talking about a number of issues, one of which included lab "mixups." (Such as the lab mixups in New York, one of the more recent issues that had been mentioned.) Another issue was poor quality samples at the scene of the crime. For Chen Long-Qi, the DNA samples at the scene of the crime were mixed, and Y-DNA was used. He was convicted, and 5 years later, he took another test with more markers that exonerated him. We had also mentioned the filmmaker. If you just happen to be innocent, few people are the same after event like this. I think the main issue here was the use of public databases, such as GEDMatch. So, you see, if you had tested all of your relatives, and posted to GEDMatch, then you have already given the sample to law enforcement. (Because GEDMatch has seemed to escape our Constitutional rights.) Which means, your family will be the first that law enforcement looks at, simply because it is already there, and easy to access. (A bias toward selecting your relatives.) In the case of the Golden State Killer, my understanding is that the last archive sample of the crime scene DNA was fully sequenced, then converted to a format (such as Ancestry) suitable to upload to GEDMatch. Then using GEDMatch to find a match on the autosomal DNA. Then, collecting discarded objects from the suspect(s) in order to determine if there would be a CODIS match, etc. When law enforcement found something that could be a match, they then issued a warrant, a process that Doug had mentioned. A long chain of events and a lot of detective work. In this example, a lab mixup is not the issue. I was just trying to point out that there are a lot of issues with using what is considered to be a public database, such as GEDMatch. (I think only a couple of States have laws against that.) For example, the Golden State Killer went back to the 4th cousin level, if memory serves me. For me, only half of the 4th and 5th cousins (known in my Y-DNA group) show up as a match from most vendors. If the vendors are not picking up all of your 4th cousins, then how does law enforcement know that they have the correct 4th cousin? Another issue (as I see it) is that we really have no evidence on how many 4th cousins may match on a CODIS test. Most people think DNA evidence is very good to use, but as we have seen with the Y-DNA, there are strange things going on, (such as parallel mutations) that we do not fully understand (when it comes to identification). A third issue would be that a jury would consider the DNA to be the ultimate measure of guilt, and tend to disregard whether or not the DNA would match anybody else. So much so that any other evidence from the defense would tend to be ignored, not only be the jury, but also by the public. I am in support of catching the bad guys, but I do have a problem with throwing a good person behind bars and calling them a bad guy. - Dave Hamm RE: On 11/29/2018 3:46 PM, Wjhonson  wrote: >  You're doubling back to something which makes no sense.Originally you claimed that DNA can be used to prove guilt and then reversed when the science improves.So the case we are talking about is *exactly* that case where DNA is *already being used* > In that case you know who the suspect is, you have their DNA.To *prove* that the DNA test was the result of a lab mixup, you then test their sibling, parent, etc. > That is the case of which we are speaking.  Not any other. >  >  > -----Original Message----- > From: McDonald, J Douglas <jdmcdona@illinois.edu> > > That's absurd. We're talking samples which are unknown ... you know, the unknown rapist. > > There's no problem with the suspect's DNA once a search warrant for it is issued. > > Doug > -----Original Message----- > From: Wjhonson via GENEALOGY-DNA <genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> > > This objection is easily overcome > Not only do you test the subject, you also test their parent, sibling, nephew, etc to prove that the original kit was not contaminated. >  >  > al RootsWeb community -- _______________________________________________ Email preferences: http://bit.ly/rootswebpref Unsubscribe https://lists.rootsweb.com/postorius/lists/genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com Privacy Statement: https://ancstry.me/2JWBOdY Terms and Conditions: https://ancstry.me/2HDBym9 Rootsweb Blog: http://rootsweb.blog RootsWeb is funded and supported by Ancestry.com and our loyal RootsWeb community