Archiver > TRANSITIONAL-GENEALOGISTS-FORUM > 2012-08 > 1345276256

Subject: Re: [TGF] DNA - proof or just indication?
Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2012 03:50:56 -0400 (EDT)

In a message dated 8/17/2012 12:38:30 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, "Elissa
Scalise Powell, CG, CGL"
(mailto:) writes:

>So do you recommend doing DNA testing with more than one subject before
coming to a conclusion that would meet the GPS? I have one DNA test that
matches the one paper trail record (the only one found existing so far)
I have for the theory. I don't know much about the vagrancies of testing.

>Could that one DNA sampling be so far off as to not be of use to proving

==Elissa, I'm not sure how a single DNA test could "match the paper trail",
without comparison to a second DNA sample that also relates to the paper
evidence, or how a single test could be "so far off."

>Are we supposed to look at DNA testing as another piece of evidence that
lie? I didn't think it could

"Elissa Scalise Powell, CG, CGL" <>

==These days DNA evidence is among the types of evidence a knowledgeable
researcher would seek, and so is within the scope of the reasonably
exhaustive search, if suitable donors can be identified and consent to testing. If
none can be found, the "reasonaby exhaustive search" requirement has been
satisfied, and the paper evidence can stand on its own, without the
confirming support or conflicting evidence the DNA samples might provide.

I understand DNA evidece to be one more part of the mix, to be considered
along with everything else on the basis of its relative credibility
compared to the other items of evidence. Y-DNA and mtDNA matches can provide
supporting, but not conclusive, evidence of relationships, but mismatches can
upset them conclusively.


This thread: