GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2003-06 > 1055546659


From: "Gaila & James Merrington" <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] DNA Print
Date: Sat, 14 Jun 2003 09:28:29 +1000
References: <9C153D0B6A83DC4FA49E468EF360C7F533B0@ivey3.ivey-ivie-ivy.net>


Hello
My understanding was that there was more than one DNA test done - including
DNA Print which showed the killer was 85% African and 15% Native American.
It was this test which led to the police interviewing Blacks instead of
focusing solely on White suspects.
There were other tests for the Forensic DNA according to the Lafayette
papers.
Gaila
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jerry L. Ivey" <>
To: <>
Sent: Saturday, June 14, 2003 1:02 AM
Subject: RE: [DNA] DNA Print


> 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.
>
> 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: