Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -


30 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, oldrover said:

This is the sort of thing that'd concern me, it's not that I don't trust Ancestry.com but that it is just a commercial venture dealing with I'd assume tens of thousands of samples. And the most serious outcome is that you don't turn out to be a descendant of Eric Bloodaxe like your family tradition always said you were. So is it really rigorous enough to base a prosecution on? Personally I wouldn't do it, not because of that, but just because mine wouldn't be much of a surprise. 

Exactly  :tu:    I'm still laughing about my own interest in the Ancestory program on DNA reading though.  They are currently having a sale on it for $79.99 and I'm not kidding, I was thinking of sending mine in .... hoping there might be a surprise !!!   Well I might have gotten a surprise "finding" all right.  Now how stupid is that on my part.  LOL    Although I say this having a good friend whose family was featured on Ancestory's TV show "Long Lost Family."  She had a half sister who had been adopted and was looking for her birth family.  They identified the family, called my friend out of the blue and told her that her sister was looking for her. She knew a child had been given up for adoption but had been told the child had then died in infancy.  Then after filming that show, she received another call telling her that she had an older full sister they had put together in their records.  She had know idea that child had even existed.  All of it was then proven to be absolutely true and Ancestory did put all of it together starting from the one DNA search.  So I don't want to seem as if I'm bad mouthing them entirely. 


1 hour ago, oldrover said:

I'm not sure what the BCI is. But again, the above points are a concern aren't they. Especially when a jury which is likely to be made up of people who don't understand the process of genetic fingerprinting, but who have a strong believe in its infallibility. 

It's not the actual accuracy of the test, although I have no idea what the error margin is, it's as you highlight above, the competency and integrity of the people undertaking it. After all if you're convicted on DNA evidence I think it is in most people's minds 'case closed'. 

Those 350 questionable cases are scary, and if that's happened in a lab which supposedly operates to the highest standards then....

In Ohio they call the top state forensic office, the Ohio Bureau of Criminal Investigation.  It is the same office that Law Enforcement here in Ohio uses to identify drugs.  That was the area I became familiar with their work here.  Example, If you were picked up transporting bags of white powder in your car, the arresting officers might think or rather very well know that's cocaine BUT that case can't go to court without forensic testing on that substance to prove the powder in that bag is cocaine rather than talcum powder and the state office is supposed to do that testing rather than local labs.  Well they were so understaffed and so over-burdened and poorly supervised on top of that, we had cases involving small amounts DISMISSED because testing took so long to come back. You can't keep cases on the court docket much over six months and still have no idea when the testing is going to come back. 

As far as the integrity of those testing, I would always feel the regular people were doing the best they can BUT I do know the record of the individual who is now Director of our BCI and he is without a doubt one of the WORST if not the very WORST I ever worked under.  His credentials for holding the position of Director of a Forensics office is that he is an attorney.  Oh, but he's not just an attorney you understand, he's a POLITICAL attorney who slimmed his way into that office as a buddy of our current governor.  So, you have a poorly equipped, understaffed department with a politician at the helm to direct them.  Frightening, isn't it. 

AS far as the error with the Columbus DNA tests, I was actually impressed with them for admitting it !  And they actually released their admission directly to the news without trying to bury it.  The 350 cases is actually an estimated number from multiple attorneys at the time of their admission.  Other than the case receiving a new trial, I often wonder how many others that it impacted.  I never heard or read any follow up articles. 

2 hours ago, oldrover said:

I didn't want to comment on the specific example cited there not because I think it's iron clad evidence but because I know none of the details about that or any individual case. I agree that leaving traces of your DNA at a crime scene or victim definitely does not mean that you're guilty, but again I know nothing about the case cited earlier. 

The original comment regarding NO other possibility regarding semen on the body was the Angie Dodge murder that Lester Holt, AE ID, recently did a Sunday crime documentary about.  The actual case doesn't matter though.  The thinking is and the statements have been, you have DNA associated with the body, you have the killer.  Perfect example was the comment you encountered as if no one should even suggest they would have the ultimate nerve to say DNA on the body is not an instant case of "that's the killer, "  "send that man to the gallows." 

And Bryan Sykes, a perfect example then of what we're trying to say here. 

  • Like 1

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

DNA genealogy is bogus . It was the girl’s mother who had her killed 


Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/21/2019 at 5:53 PM, docyabut2 said:

“genetic genealogy is cool to find the killers :)

I'm diggin' it, too, Docy! :lol:

Seriously, it was stated in the press conference that it's helped to solve nearly 60 cases by now, but as for DNA analysis itself, I'm blown away by the capability to predict physical characteristics!

Re: the genealogy analysis in this case, as it's turned out, it's actually what I'd figured had to be the circumstance. What I mean is, the genealogists had identified the correct family- to me, there was no reason to think they hadn't, it was just that the suspect's birth wasn't listed among the descendants. 

  • Like 1

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.