GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2003-06 > 1055516564


From: "Jerry L. Ivey" <>
Subject: RE: [DNA] DNA Print
Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2003 10:02:44 -0500


Yes, but the "DNA test of the Black suspect" was not DNAPrint. This is
the kind of mis-impression that can be left with the general public that
a test intended for genealogical work or for the narrow forensics goals
of DNAPrint can be used to uniquely identify a person.

That's the kind of impression that can make it more difficult for us to
get volunteers for DNA testing for genealogical studies.

-----Original Message-----
From: [mailto:]
Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2003 11:04 PM
To:
Subject: Re: [DNA] DNA Print


In a message dated 06/12/2003 10:58:38 PM Central Daylight Time,
writes:

> I thought the report was misleading to viewers. I will acknowledge
> that the DNAPrint test was valuable in showing a majority African
> ancestry of the suspect. However, there was an unstated implication
> that it was also the DNAPrint test used for the actual DNA matching of

> the person arrested and the crime scene samples.
>

I didn't get that impression at all. It was Tony's test that gave them
the
Authority to get a DNA test of the Black suspect, with a court order.
His DNA
was, then, matched to the crime scenes. While they were awaiting the
results,
the suspect fled to Atlanta.
Julia


This thread: