I don't think one need worry, unless it is a perfect match or
if there is other evidence incriminatin you.
"Dead Paul" wrote in message
news:g0e31h$cq3$1@news.datemas.de...
> I'm unsure if the British system is equally flawed but it's an angle
> which I had not previously considered.
> This account is relating what's currently happening in the USA.
>
> <<
> Like fingerprints, DNA are very powerful and scientifically sound
> evidence, when used to connect a known suspect to evidence found at the
> scene of the crime. Jurors are easily persuaded to accept the DNA link for
> someone who had already been suspected of a crime scene when told the odds
> against a false identification are 1 in millions or billions.
>
> But DNA is far less certain when you compare one sample against all of the
> profiles in the database typically known as one-to-many. In that case the
> chances that a match between a DNA sample -- especially an incomplete one
> -- and a person in a DNA database could nab an innocent person has
> different math. Very different math.
>
> So if you have a probability of 1 in 1.1 million chance of people having a
> certain sequence of DNA markers and you have a database of 550,000 people,
> you have a 50% chance of making a match. That's great, if you know that
> the perpetrator is in that database. But what it also means is that as you
> start testing DNA profiles against more and more people, the chances that
> you will match an innocent person to a DNA profile from a crime scene gets
> higher.
>>>
> http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/05/feds-to-collect.html
>
>
> Exactly, you need other corroborating evidence before DNA evidence is even
> worth a spit. Without that other evidence your DNA match is virtually
> certain to latch on to an innocent person as well as the guilty party
> (assuming he is in the database).
>
> --
> ___ _______ ___ ___ ___ __ ____
> / _ \/ __/ _ | / _ \ / _ \/ _ |/ / / / /
> / // / _// __ |/ // / / ___/ __ / /_/ / /__
> /____/___/_/ |_/____/ /_/ /_/ |_\____/____/
>
|