DNA and the law

[Elspeth]

We have a book on the market now alleging that the Bush administration paid the CIA 5 million dollars in hush money in order to "prove" the existence of WMD in Iraq.
The growing hospital scandal at UCLA at present seems to involve up to 127 persons.
A scientist is believed to be the cause of the anthrax scare.
But we are supposed to accept the story of AA's putative intestines and hair whose DNA ties her to Franziska Schanzkowska with whom she had nothing in common instead of Grand Duchess Anastasia with whom she shared every single trait.

This is relevant because...?

 

[ChatNoir]

Because these are the stories that have made headlines in my paper the last week and again show us how very little we know about what goes on behind the scenes until it is exposed to us.
Makes me wonder even more about the samples and where they came from.
AA walked like a duck. She talked like a duck.
But she really was a caterpillar.
Sorry, it just doesn't make sense to me.

 

[Warren]

...how very little we know about what goes on behind the scenes until it is exposed to us.

Ah! George Bush paid money to the CIA and that's evidence of the DNA scientists being involved in a conspiracy. Can't fault that logic. Case closed!

 

[Elspeth]

Because these are the stories that have made headlines in my paper the last week and again show us how very little we know about what goes on behind the scenes until it is exposed to us.
Makes me wonder even more about the samples and where they came from.

I still don't see the reasoning here. One scientist working in a completely unrelated field has been fingered for a crime, and this casts doubt on the Anderson samples? Is there any actual evidence that the Anderson samples were tampered with or that the researchers falsified their data, or are we still in the realms of wishful thinking? I mean, I think we're all aware that there are things going on behind the scenes of just about any event that outsiders don't know about, but that doesn't mean that conspiracy theories become credible.

 

[ChatNoir]

I don't think that one scientist being fingered for a crime automatically casts doubt on every other scientist. It is just part of the news that has gone around this week that serves to illustrate how different a story can look at the end than at the beginning. And AA being found to be a person with whom she has nothing in common is still puzzling to me.

From "Tsar": In 1994, at the very moment the DNA experts concluded that Mrs, Anderson was not the tsar's daughter, new forensic comparions of her face an ears with pictures of the young Anastasia, commissioned for a television documentary in England and following routine procedures of legal identification, reached exactly the opposite conclusion. The expereiment was later successfully repeated by specialists in the United States, and their conclusions, too, were delivered with "certainty" - Anna Anderson was Anastasia. The DNA tests have won the hour, and will probably stand as the final work on a case that has left everyone who came near it, for or against, with a sense of tragedy and persistent, nagging doubts.

 

[AGRBear]

Bear:>> am I questioning the accuracy of her work. Nor am I questioned the accuracy of Drs. Gill's and King/Ginther's works.

What I am questioning is the sample of AA's was not secure, in a teaching and research hospital where it could have been compromised between the years 1979 and 1992. Once the sample became part of a law suit, it was then and only them placed into a secured place. Only then can we have an unbroken chain of custody.<<

I'd like to know if AA's samples were ever used in research.

Elspeth:
>> I can see a judge cautioning a jury to be wary of the results from the intestinal sample if it was the only sample available - although under the circumstances, I'd be surprised if it was disallowed altogether unless they were able to prove some sort of underhanded behaviour by the hospital or some evidence that the sample was switched or tampered <<

In this scenario: Lawyers on team A did not claim there was "some sort of underhanded behaviour by the hospital".

Elspeth:
>>All this "the samples could have been switched" business is all very well - you can come up with all sorts of scenarios to cast doubt on the authenticity of a sample - but in order to have the samples ruled inadmissible you have to show that there's reason to believe that they're actually false. And "reason to believe" means that you need more than just handwaving to show that there's a problem with them. Both of them. Simultaneously. They'd both have had to be switched in order to give the same results (unless you're going to assert collusion by the scientists, which is potential defamation unless you have some backup). Unless your lawyer can convince the judge that this is so likely that the results are worthless, I see no basis for the judge to rule the samples inadmissible.<<

We've past this point. Please go back and reread my posts which voiced that the DNA was allowed, however, the lawyers of team A, has convinced me that the chain of custody is important, therefore, I am waiting for team B, who's business it is to convince me that the chain of custody may be missing BUT can and will show me proof of how impossible it was to tamper with the samples and the clump of hair did indeed come from AA because.... Have you? No.

As for conspiracy, the proof is not placed upon lawyers of team A, all they had to do was placed doubt in my mind, and, they did so as I've already posted.

Did lawyers of team A know the names, the dates, etc. etc. of anyone who was involved in a actual "conspiracy"? No. But they gave the jury very believable information about the possibilities of political and or personal importance of why people wanted the public to believe AA was FS.

So, I've, now, turned my attention to the lawyers of team B, who should be able to convince me that AA was FS. When I agreed to take up the position as a jurist, I promised to listen to ALL the evidence.

Meanwhile, team B needs to convince Chat, who we can placed next to me as jurists no. 10, does believe AA was GD Anastasia, therefore, he's waiting for lawyers of team B for evidence to prove AA was not GD Anastasia.

All lawyers, who are experienced in the court and excellent in their occupation, know DNA/mtDNA is not always enough in cases like this one.

So, where are we at this point? Team B has arrogantly stated that I should believe the samples of intestine weren't compromised and that it's ridiculous to think that some unknown snuck into the lab and made a switch AND placed a clump of hair in an envelope because they wanted the public to believe AA was FS..

So, here I sit, wondering when team B is going to realize DNA/mtDNA isn't always enough in cases like this one.

AGRBear

 

[OlgaNikolaievna]

What? George Bush paid the CIA to switch the intestines?

 

[Elspeth]

We've past this point. Please go back and reread my posts which voiced that the DNA was allowed, however, the lawyers of team A, has convinced me that the chain of custody is important, therefore, I am waiting for team B, who's business it is to convince me that the chain of custody may be missing BUT can and will show me proof of how impossible it was to tamper with the samples and the clump of hair did indeed come from AA because.... Have you? No.

I'm not trying to. I'm just countering your position from several posts ago that the lack of a complete chain of custody for the intestine sample would disqualify it as evidence. I'm glad you seem to have changed your mind on that one.

As to whether a jury would be convinced one way or the other, I don't care. What we have here is a scientifically strong result obtained by reputable experts. Whether the result would impress jurors is a separate issue and depends on the skills of the various lawyers. Whichever way these potential jurors would end up voting, the scientific results are the same.

 

[AGRBear]

I'm not trying to. I'm just countering your position from several posts ago that the lack of a complete chain of custody for the intestine sample would disqualify it as evidence. I'm glad you seem to have changed your mind on that one.

I haven't changed my mind, I just have not made up my mind, therein lies the difference. I'm still open to information.

Elspeth:

As to whether a jury would be convinced one way or the other, I don't care. What we have here is a scientifically strong result obtained by reputable experts. Whether the result would impress jurors is a separate issue and depends on the skills of the various lawyers. Whichever way these potential jurors would end up voting, the scientific results are the same.

What you have is scientifically strong but in this scenario I am a jurist, who is not convinced, therefore, in this case you need more. Since the DNA / mtDNA in your mind proves AA was FS, then it should not be so difficult to present evidence. You've mentioned the clump of hair. I've posted the information about the clump of hair.

Boris has presented the foot deformity of AA's and GD Anastasia's. Felix signed a sworn statement [this means it is not heresay but a legal document] that FS did not have such a deformity.

----
Side track:

The abilities of lawyers to present their case is a separate issue and like our lawyer friends, who deal in criminal law, say, they may loose a case and a bad guy might get away, but, in the end the criminal always is stupid enough to get himself into trouble, again, and justice will be served. OJ is a perfect example. There's no "black glove" this time. Our courts may not be perfect but there better than anyone else's in this world of ours.

AGRBear

 

[Elspeth]

I haven't changed my mind, I just have not made up my mind, therein lies the difference. I'm still open to information.

In post 13 you said "In a real court of law here in the USA, if it is proven that the chain of custody can not be proven then everything which surrounds the samples of the intestine will not be admitted into evidence during the case."

Obviously the chain of custody of the intestinal sample can't be proven. So if you weren't claiming that the intestinal sample wouldn't be admitted into evidence, it wasn't clear from your post.

What you have is scientifically strong but in this scenario I am a jurist, who is not convinced, therefore, in this case you need more. Since the DNA / mtDNA in your mind proves AA was FS, then it should not be so difficult to present evidence.

I have said nothing of the sort. I've said that the mismatch between Prince Philip's mtDNA sample and the two independent samples from Anna Anderson show that she wasn't related to the Tsarina. Her identification as Franziska Schankowska is a lot less certain.

 

[BorisRom]

We don't know that Anna Anderson had congenital hallux valgus. We simply have the word of a doctor who treated her for TB that she must have done. That's hardly conclusive. We don't know whether the exact angle of the deformation was the same for both of them. We don't know a lot of things about this claim. We know a lot more about the DNA, which the Anderson apologists are simply brushing aside.

Elspeth,
Thus, you agree that Anna Anderson had hallus valgus. (you doubt, that she had congenital HV only). You know also, that Felix Shanzkowsky has officially refused to recognize АА as the sister and he has told, that his sister (FS) "had beautiful feet".
In this case, - I think - you cannot trust results of identification of DNA FS \AA.
It is elementary logic. Yes?
Regards
Boris

 

[Elspeth]

I don't know how many times I'm going to have to repeat that I don't care whether Anna Anderson was Franziska Schankowska or not, and the DNA results, while supportive of the identity, are by no means conclusive.

I'm just wondering why you're applying such an obvious double standard to the DNA results and this business about the hallux valgus.

 

[BorisRom]

<...> I'm just wondering why you're applying such an obvious double standard to the DNA results and this business about the hallux valgus.

I prefer data of medical statistics (of CHV), because its reliability in 3000 times more to reliability of the DNA results (of 1990th years). Besides, data of medical statistics are free from suspicions in mistakes or falsification (unlike the data of tests of DNA).
Even if we shall consider not congenital HV of AA and ANR, but only the heavy form of HV: only 0,0152 % from the surveyed women (1 : 6580) have it. In view of what both women (AA and ANR) had heavier form of HV on right foot, we have probability of concurrence 1:13000. It all the same is more than a reliability of the DNA results of 1990th years.
Thus, I'm not double standards! Only elementary logic.
Regards
Boris

 

[Warren]

Posts not relevant to the thread topic have been moved over to the Anna Anderson's claim to be GD Anastasia thread.

Warren
Russian Forums moderator

 

[Elspeth]

I prefer data of medical statistics (of CHV), because its reliability in 3000 times more to reliability of the DNA results (of 1990th years). Besides, data of medical statistics are free from suspicions in mistakes or falsification (unlike the data of tests of DNA).
Even if we shall consider not congenital HV of AA and ANR, but only the heavy form of HV: only 0,0152 % from the surveyed women (1 : 6580) have it. In view of what both women (AA and ANR) had heavier form of HV on right foot, we have probability of concurrence 1:13000. It all the same is more than a reliability of the DNA results of 1990th years.
Thus, I'm not double standards! Only elementary logic.
Regards
Boris

Well, it doesn't matter how many or few people have congenital hallux valgus, does it, if the two ladies concerned had it to different degrees. All the statistics in the world aren't going to help you if the two individual cases aren't the same. Severe hallux valgus isn't necessarily the same for two people.

Do you know how common it is for hallux valgus to be worse on the right foot than the left? My suspicion is that it would be the more common pattern since most people are right-handed and tend to be slightly larger on their right side than their left and since bunions are exacerbated by tight-fitting shoes. I don't know; it's just a suspicion. I also have a suspicion that you don't know either, but aren't looking any deeper than the simple fact that the condition was worse for the same foot for both ladies.

Which is what I mean by applying a double standard. You aren't prepared to accept the results of some of the best mtDNA researchers and forensic scientists, regardless of the fact that barely three years ago Charles Ginther said he thought their work was generally believable (which he didn't need to say if he thought that mtDNA research done in the early to mid 1990s wasn't reliable). Yet you're happy to take the word of a TB doctor about bunions, you haven't checked how common it is for them to be worse on the right foot, and you have no idea if the two ladies had this condition to the same degree as each other. You just know that they both had severe problems with bunions and it was worse on the right foot. So did my grandmother. So did a lot of people's grandmothers by the sound of this thread.

Which brings me to another point that you don't seem to have considered. Bunions don't seem to be all that common these days but everybody's granny seems to have had them. Although the condition is probably genetic, it's exacerbated by ill-fitting footwear. Nowadays you can buy shoes in all sorts of different widths and shapes and sizes, so even some of the high-fashion shoes can still fit pretty well. Nowadays it isn't considered unfeminine to have big feet, to the point where you have to stuff your feet into shoes that are three sizes too small in order to appear attractive. And nowadays a lot of women spend a fair amount of time wearing sports shoes and sandals, which are a lot more forgiving on the feet. Which makes me wonder whether severe hallux valgus was as rare in the early 20th century as it is these days, especially in young women. If that's true (and I'm not necessarily saying that it is, because I don't know), statistics obtained in the last 10 or even 50 years might not be applicable to the Anderson case.

In the meantime, without resorting to accusations of incompetence, dishonesty or both against the scientists who did the DNA research or some sort of massive conspiracy to switch two or three independent samples (depending on when you claim that the switch took place), you still have the DNA results to explain away. And you can't do it by just saying that they were obtained in the mid-1990s, because (a) unless I'm greatly mistaken, nobody's come forward to say that results obtained before a certain year are worthless and (b) in 2005 another scientist said of the Gill and Stoneking results that they're generally believable.

 

[Anna was Franziska]

I know it's been posted somewhere here before, but for the record, here is the reason why, in the AA case, it doesn't matter if the mid 90's tests are 'outdated.'

For example (this is going to be extremely oversimplified, but ok for our purposes). Here are two sequences:


ACTGGGTAACGTAAGGTC
AGTAAGCCACTATACGCC


So we are comparing them to see if the two match. Normally you won't compare the entire sequence but just part of it...

So if we look at random loci (positions) then there is a chance we may get a false positive if we don't look at enough of them... Like this:

ACTGGGTAACGTAAGGTC
AGTAAGCCACTATACGCC


So even though these specific loci match, the sequence doesn't. Statistically speaking, the more loci you compare the more accurate the result will be, because in this case, if you did one more, there would be a mismatch and we would have our answer.

However, with mismatch, it's a different story once there is a mismatch, even of one base. So if you look at the same sequence but compare more loci and get one mismatch, it's a mismatch, period. There is no way you can a false mismatch... Like this:

ACTGGGTAACGTAAGGTC
AGTAAGCCACTATACGCC


And once there is a mismatch, even ONE mismatch, all bets are off.

To be clear. Whether one looks at 13 or 23 loci, ONE mismatch is an exclusion for mtDNA. The case of Anna Manahan had FIVE mismatches to the Victoria line of descent. There were NO mismatches for the Karl Maucher mtDNA. IF one examines 23 loci, the same five mis-matches will STILL be there. This is the reason that every single specialist in forensic mtDNA analysis says there is no reason to re test the Anna manahan samples.

Yes the entire genome is vast, BUT every single human being shares the exact same sequences over 99.5% of the genome. The actual amount of variation is rather small, and occurs in what is called "junk DNA". Only certain strings of junk DNA will match with close blood relations. HOWEVER, only two or three max. mis matches will exclude relationship 100% no doubt. THIS is why those claiming the mtDNA of Anna Anderson should be retested or is "unrealiable" are simply uninformed, misguided or deliberately avoiding the reality.

The bottom line is, it only takes ONE mismatch to disqualify you from being related to Alexandra and the Hessian and Victorian line. AA had FIVE, and if you increase the number of lines tested from the 13 of then to the 23 of now, she can only have more mismatches. ONE was all it took, she had five, so it doesn't matter how advanced the tests become and how many lines are tested. She missed.

 

[AGRBear]

In post 13 you said "In a real court of law here in the USA, if it is proven that the chain of custody can not be proven then everything which surrounds the samples of the intestine will not be admitted into evidence during the case."

Obviously the chain of custody of the intestinal sample can't be proven. So if you weren't claiming that the intestinal sample wouldn't be admitted into evidence, it wasn't clear from your post.

If you have the time, go back and reread what I said. For this scenario, the DNA/mtDNA tests of the sample of intestines was admitted. Trouble is, I've been convinced by team A's lawyers that the chain of custody cannot be established and provided information that there many people who had the motive, the money and the opportunity who could have tampered with the samples of intestine and hair.

I added the hair since this additional information does carry weight that has has swayed the other jurists but Bear is still not convinced.

I have said nothing of the sort. I've said that the mismatch between Prince Philip's mtDNA sample and the two independent samples from Anna Anderson show that she wasn't related to the Tsarina. Her identification as Franziska Schankowska is a lot less certain.

I don't think you can divide the tests for Philip's and Carl Maucher's.

All I am trying to explain to you and others that the DNA/mtDNA isn't the only evidence needed to convince jurists/posters that AA was FS.

AGRBear

 

[Anna was Franziska]

Carl Maucher's.

All I am trying to explain to you and others that the DNA/mtDNA isn't the only evidence needed to convince jurists/posters that AA was FS.

AGRBear

Though a 99.9% match is very strong and would be enough for most people, and a switch with someone in the family being very illogical and unrealistic, other things in favor of AA being FS are that the detectives in the 20's found AA to be FS, FS looks exactly like AA, AA had mental issues and FS was mentally ill, and AA appeared in the same time frame and same place FS disappeared. It would really, really have to be grasping at straws to come up with her being anyone else. Besides, like OJ and the 'real killer', there are no other suspects. (except for AN and that has been ruled out)

 

[Elspeth]

If you have the time, go back and reread what I said. For this scenario, the DNA/mtDNA tests of the sample of intestines was admitted. Trouble is, I've been convinced by team A's lawyers that the chain of custody cannot be established and provided information that there many people who had the motive, the money and the opportunity who could have tampered with the samples of intestine and hair.

And if you go back and read what I said, you'll see that I'm not interested in this scenario of yours or in persuading you about anything or playing lawyer or whatever. I was responding to your earlier assertion that the sample was inadmissible as evidence because of the chain-of-custody issues. What happens to it after it's admitted into evidence is another issue entirely.

I don't think you can divide the tests for Philip's and Carl Maucher's.

Yes, you can. Because if the Anna Anderson sample is from Anna Anderson and the Prince Philip sample is from Prince Philip, the mismatch rules out the possibility that she's related to the Tsarina. And I do mean "rules out." That's what mismatches do.

However, if the Anna Anderson sample is from Anna Anderson and the Carl Maucher sample is from Carl Maucher, the match doesn't necessarily mean that they have to be related. It means that it's highly likely but it doesn't mean that it's certain. It wasn't a genetic fingerprint.

That's the difference between the two tests, and it's explained pretty clearly in the Gill paper.

All I am trying to explain to you and others that the DNA/mtDNA isn't the only evidence needed to convince jurists/posters that AA was FS.

And all I'm trying to explain to you and others is that that doesn't mean that it's incorrect. All the theories about inept and corrupt scientists and switched samples notwithstanding.

 

[Michael HR]

I thought the mtDNA from Carl Maucher was a match to that from Anna Anderson and would suggest that Anna Anderson was a member of his family. If she was there is I assume only one member she could have been.

The way you wrote your answer suggests that even if there is a mtDNA between AA and Maucher match this would not necessarily mean that the two test subjects are related to each other and if that were true then the match between Empress Alexandra and the children to Prince Philip might mean that they were not related?

Why would a macth between AA and Carl Maucher not mean they are related as this relationship with mtDNA seems to be the whole basis of the ID of Anderson and of course the Imperial Family with thier mtDNA?

Michael

 

[AGRBear]

I think there is a misunderstanding occurring.

The thread is about DNA/mtDNA in the courts.

It is my understanding from all the lawyers with whom I've had conversations that in the case of proving AA was FS that they would, along with the DNA/mtDNA need to provide the jurists with additional evidence. Why? Because the lawyers, who's job it is to prove AA was not FS, would present a very strong case and would probably accomplished the task of placing doubts about the DNA/mtDNA.

I merely took out of the speculations that anyone at the hosptial, Dr. Gill, Ginther and other scientists were involved in any kind of wrong doing. Instead, I was dealing with the time period between 1976 up to the time the samples of the intestines identified as being AA's became part of a court case when people, who were outside of the hosptial and labs had motives, opportuntities and money to support unlawful acts.

This is all that I'm trying to convey.

I am not here to try and convince you that AA was FS. I am merely trying to explain that emotions, logic and your own beliefs doesn't fly very far in a court of law when you dealing with 11 people and the 12th being Bear on the jury.

There really isn't much more I can post, unless, you really do want to go back through all the evidence for all those concern. But not here. This would need it's own thread.

AGRBear

 

[Elspeth]

I thought the mtDNA from Carl Maucher was a match to that from Anna Anderson and would suggest that Anna Anderson was a member of his family. If she was there is I assume only one member she could have been.

The way you wrote your answer suggests that even if there is a mtDNA between AA and Maucher match this would not necessarily mean that the two test subjects are related to each other and if that were true then the match between Empress Alexandra and the children to Prince Philip might mean that they were not related?

Why would a macth between AA and Carl Maucher not mean they are related as this relationship with mtDNA seems to be the whole basis of the ID of Anderson and of course the Imperial Family with thier mtDNA?

Michael

mtDNA isn't the same as a genetic fingerprint; it isn't unique to a particular individual. There are different mtDNA patterns, some more common than others, so it somewhat depends on how common the sequence is as to how certain you can be that you're dealing with actual relations. This is what the Gill paper said about the mtDNA pattern from the Anna Anderson samples and from the Carl Maucher sample:

"To assess the strength of the evidence we compared the DNA profile from the Maucher and putative Anna Anderson sampels with over 300 Caucasian sequences in published and unpublished databases. We did not find a match, which suggests that the DNA sequence is rare. Assuming that the databases we have used are representative of European Causasians, the chance of finding matching DNA profiles if Carl Maucher and Anna Anderson are unrelated through the maternal line is less than one in 300."

That doesn't rule out the possibility of a coincidental match, but it makes it unlikely. However, the fact that the Anderson samples didn't match the Prince Philip sample means that she isn't related to Prince Philip through the maternal line, which she would have been had she really been Anastasia.

 

[BorisRom]

Well, it doesn't matter how many or few people have congenital hallux valgus, does it, if the two ladies concerned had it to different degrees. All the statistics in the world aren't going to help you if the two individual cases aren't the same. Severe hallux valgus isn't necessarily the same for two people. <...>

Elspeth,
Reliability of DNA-test=1:N is meaning, that DNA-tests of N[FONT=Arial CYR, sans-serif] person[/FONT][FONT=Arial, sans-serif]s[/FONT][FONT=Arial CYR, sans-serif] will show, that one of them is a relative [/FONT][FONT=Arial, sans-serif]of test-[/FONT][FONT=Arial CYR, sans-serif]person. [/FONT][FONT=Arial, sans-serif]It is[/FONT][FONT=Arial CYR, sans-serif] properties of work with the limited databank of DNA (the databank does not include DNA of all people on the [/FONT][FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Earth[/FONT][FONT=Arial CYR, sans-serif]). How much I know, in 1990 reliability of DNA-tests was no more 1:6000. It means, for example, that if in 1990th years [/FONT][FONT=Arial, sans-serif]the [/FONT][FONT=Arial CYR, sans-serif]genetics would compare my DNA to DNA of 6 000 000 Portugueses (for example) [/FONT][FONT=Arial, sans-serif]- in this case [/FONT][FONT=Arial CYR, sans-serif]1000 Portugueses would appear [/FONT][FONT=Arial, sans-serif]as [/FONT][FONT=Arial CYR, sans-serif]my relatives. I think, that any Portuguese is not my relative actually (unfortunately[/FONT][FONT=Arial, sans-serif] )[/FONT][FONT=Arial CYR, sans-serif].[/FONT]
On the other hand, if I had 6000 relatives (for example) - in this case DNA-tests (in 1990th years) would show, that one of them is not my relative (in spite of the fact that he is my relative).

Now we shall consider medical statistics of C-HV (we shall assume for simplicity of comparison it=1: 18 million). AA said, that she is ANR. Both had C-HV. Only one of 18 million women could say it. DNA-tests (with reliability 1:6000) would apply[FONT=Arial CYR, sans-serif] it ([/FONT][FONT=Arial, sans-serif]AA=ANR[/FONT][FONT=Arial CYR, sans-serif]) to 3[/FONT][FONT=Arial CYR, sans-serif] thousand [/FONT][FONT=Arial CYR, sans-serif]women ([/FONT][FONT=Arial, sans-serif]from these 18 million[/FONT][FONT=Arial CYR, sans-serif])!!![/FONT]
[FONT=Arial CYR, sans-serif]The medical statistics of a heavy case of HV (1:13000) [/FONT][FONT=Arial, sans-serif]would [/FONT][FONT=Arial CYR, sans-serif]show, that only one of 13 thousand women could apply to be ANR, while DNA-tests (with reliability 1:6000) [/FONT][FONT=Arial, sans-serif]could [/FONT][FONT=Arial, sans-serif]apply[/FONT][FONT=Arial CYR, sans-serif] i[/FONT][FONT=Arial, sans-serif]t[/FONT][FONT=Arial CYR, sans-serif] to two women (from these 13 000). [/FONT]

[FONT=Arial CYR, sans-serif]Thus, DNA-tests with reliability less [/FONT][FONT=Arial, sans-serif]than [/FONT][FONT=Arial CYR, sans-serif]medical statistics of congenital HV (or at least of heavy HV) cannot be considered more preferable -[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial CYR, sans-serif]at least in such complex case as history of AA-ANR. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial CYR, sans-serif]...At least in such complex case as history of AA-ANR... [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial CYR, sans-serif]. [/FONT]

 

[Elspeth]

Reliability of DNA-test=1:N is meaning, that DNA-tests of N[FONT=Arial CYR, sans-serif] person[/FONT][FONT=Arial, sans-serif]s[/FONT][FONT=Arial CYR, sans-serif] will show, that one of them is a relative [/FONT][FONT=Arial, sans-serif]of test-[/FONT][FONT=Arial CYR, sans-serif]person. [/FONT][FONT=Arial, sans-serif]It is[/FONT][FONT=Arial CYR, sans-serif] properties of work with the limited databank of DNA (the databank does not include DNA of all people on the [/FONT][FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Earth[/FONT][FONT=Arial CYR, sans-serif]). How much I know, in 1990 reliability of DNA-tests was no more 1:6000. It means, for example, that if in 1990th years [/FONT][FONT=Arial, sans-serif]the [/FONT][FONT=Arial CYR, sans-serif]genetics would compare my DNA to DNA of 6 000 000 Portugueses (for example) [/FONT][FONT=Arial, sans-serif]- in this case [/FONT][FONT=Arial CYR, sans-serif]1000 Portugueses would appear [/FONT][FONT=Arial, sans-serif]as [/FONT][FONT=Arial CYR, sans-serif]my relatives. I think, that any Portuguese is not my relative actually (unfortunately[/FONT][FONT=Arial, sans-serif] )[/FONT][FONT=Arial CYR, sans-serif].[/FONT]

Where are you getting these numbers?

And why are you even worrying about them? If mtDNA samples from two people don't match, they don't match. Statistics are irrelevant.

 

[BorisRom]

1:6000

Elspeth.
Numbers of reliability of DNA-tests = 1:6000 (in 1990th years) is the most high that I saw - “1:6000” is in “FOTR” (by Greg King and Penny Wilson, - page 757 in Russian edition).

 

[AGRBear]

mtDNA isn't the same as a genetic fingerprint; it isn't unique to a particular individual. There are different mtDNA patterns, some more common than others, so it somewhat depends on how common the sequence is as to how certain you can be that you're dealing with actual relations.

...[in part]....

I thought the combination of the DNA and the mtDNA did give us the genetic fingerprint and that is why they believe the male and female remains in the two pits found a year ago July are siblings and children of Nich. II and Alexandra. And that the markers would be nearly the same but not exactly so they will [so I'm told but have not yet seen the results of this] be able to prove there are four grand duchesses and not just three.

These same markers were used to compare Prince Philip's, the remains believed to be three grand duchesses, Alexandra and Nich. II's, plus the blood tests of Carl Maucher's. Marg.'s and the intestine samples which many believe were AA's. Other tests included hair, blood samples found on slides, syringes, etc..

Just using the sample of the intestines, Dr. Gill and Dr. Ginther agree that the intestines believed to be AA's show a close match with Carl Maucher's. It is likely that they are related when using the intestine and hair samples. This relationship could mean Carl can be the nephew or a relative. Meaning AA and Gertrude, Carl's grandmother, could be sisters or first cousins or second cousins up to 25th cousin. OR, the match could be just a coincidence.

In Dr. Gill's data base at that time had only 300 samples of Caucasian Europeans. Does not mention Russian samples. Since then, I'm sure these numbers have changed.

I always get itchy around numbers [stats] because the conclusions by individuals/groups usually depend upon who they are and why the numbers are gathered. (Living in Cailfornia and seeing all kinds of number floating around by the Dem. and the Rep. Parties during political campaigns, I could provide you with great examples of what oppositions like our Dem. and Rep. can do with their numbers.)

Added to this is the problem that no one has found the birth certificate and or baptismal record of Gertrude, nee S., Ellrich's with the other records of FS, Felix and the other siblings. So, we're not even sure that FS and Gertrude had the same mother and/or father.

According to Richard Schweitzer, a copy of a birth certificate was sent to him but it is without any kind of official seal. Nor do we know who found this information and where it was registered. Therefore, doubt circles this copy and cannot be presented, at this time, with any kind of official backing. I assume he's looking into this farther for verification of some kind. When I was looking, I found about 15 females around Posen with the same name [spelled a variety of ways] but none had the names of the parents of FS.

AGRBear

 

[Elspeth]

Elspeth.
Numbers of reliability of DNA-tests = 1:6000 (in 1990th years) is the most high that I saw - “1:6000” is in “FOTR” (by Greg King and Penny Wilson, - page 757 in Russian edition).

Do you mean the quote (from page 445 of the English edition that I'm looking at):

"The sequences derived through this method [DNA splicing] matched that provided by the duke of Edinburgh, itself considered rare in the early years of genetic research when the testing was conducted: statistical estimation placed the likelihood of finding the same genetic profile at 1 in every 6,000 European Caucasians."

Because that isn't talking about the reliability of the test in the sense of whether the test is giving a meaningful match, it's talking about the likelihood that an mtDNA match indicates actual relatedness.

Which brings me back to the point I was making before. Since these tests aren't genetic fingerprints, a match doesn't imply a unique identity. That's well known, and the authors of the Gill paper have said as much. However, a mismatch rules out relatedness through the female line. That's why the authors of that paper were so much more certain that Anna Anderson wasn't Anastasia than they were prepared to claim that she was Franziska Schankowska.

The 1 in 6000 stuff refers to matches, not mismatches.

 

[Elspeth]

I thought the combination of the DNA and the mtDNA did give us the genetic fingerprint and that is why they believe the male and female remains in the two pits found a year ago July are siblings and children of Nich. II and Alexandra. And that the markers would be nearly the same but not exactly so they will [so I'm told but have not yet seen the results of this] be able to prove there are four grand duchesses and not just three.

No, they don't give a genetic fingerprint. A genetic fingerprint would use so many markers that the likelihood of a perfect match being coincidental would be essentially zero. As far as I know, and I'm sure you know I'm not an expert, you wouldn't use mtDNA in a genetic fingerprint, just nuclear DNA. The point of a genetic fingerprint is to take DNA samples from two sources (such as a murder suspect and the crime scene) and compare them to see if they're from the same person. It can also be used to establish paternity if the DNA pattern of the alleged father matches enough of the DNA sequences of the child, making allowances for the fact that the child will have inherited half his DNA from his other parent.

In this case you don't have DNA from the two people concerned, or DNA from a parent or a sibling, you're just dealing with great nephews and second cousins or whatever. The DNA itself was pretty badly degraded and I don't even know if there would have been enough of it for a full fingerprint analysis.

These same markers were used to compare Prince Philip's, the remains believed to be three grand duchesses, Alexandra and Nich. II's, plus the blood tests of Carl Maucher's. Marg.'s and the intestine samples which many believe were AA's. Other tests included hair, blood samples found on slides, syringes, etc..

If I remember right, they were only using five or six markers, which is fairly standard in this sort of test. I think a full nuclear DNA fingerprint analysis uses something like 20. It's been a while since I read about this in any great detail so I could be misremembering.

Just using the sample of the intestines, Dr. Gill and Dr. Ginther agree that the intestines believed to be AA's show a close match with Carl Maucher's. It is likely that they are related when using the intestine and hair samples. This relationship could mean Carl can be the nephew or a relative. Meaning AA and Gertrude, Carl's grandmother, could be sisters or first cousins or second cousins up to 25th cousin. OR, the match could be just a coincidence.

Yep.

In Dr. Gill's data base at that time had only 300 samples of Caucasian Europeans. Does not mention Russian samples. Since then, I'm sure these numbers have changed.

They may well have. At this point my guide would be the fact that Dr Ginther said three years ago that the Gill results were generally believable; he didn't say that they were probably invalidated by larger databases of reference samples.

I always get itchy around numbers [stats] because the conclusions by individuals/groups usually depend upon who they are and why the numbers are gathered. (Living in Cailfornia and seeing all kinds of number floating around by the Dem. and the Rep. Parties during political campaigns, I could provide you with great examples of what oppositions like our Dem. and Rep. can do with their numbers.)

Indeed, and this is why you'll never see me claiming that the match with the Maucher sample indicates anything more than a high likelihood of relatedness, which is a lot different from a certainty.

However, the fact remains of the mismatch between the Anderson sample and Prince Philip's sample. In the face of a mismatch, statistics are irrelevant. If they don't match, they don't match. The rate of mutation of mtDNA through the generations is too low for people of such similar generations as Anna Anderson and Prince Philip to be related through the maternal line in the face of that sort of mismatch.

 

[BorisRom]

Do you mean the quote (from page 445 of the English edition that I'm looking at): "The sequences derived through this method [DNA splicing] matched that provided by the duke of Edinburgh, itself considered rare in the early years of genetic research when the testing was conducted: statistical estimation placed the likelihood of finding the same genetic profile at 1 in every 6,000 European Caucasians."

[FONT=Times New Roman CYR, serif]Elspeth,[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman CYR, serif]yes, you are right: [/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman CYR, serif]the likelihood that an mtDNA match indicates actual ([/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]valid[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman CYR, serif]) relatedness is 6,000:1 (in 1990-th years). Thus: one mistake on 6,000 tests.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman CYR, serif]Hence, 3,000 women from every 18 millions [/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]c[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman CYR, serif]ould sa[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]y[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman CYR, serif] they was ANR (actual relatedness) through DNA-tests in 1990-th years – if all 18 millions would test on DNA ([/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]mtDNA [/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman CYR, serif]mutch). [/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman CYR, serif]Now let me consider medical statistics of C-HV (we shall assume for simplicity of comparison [/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman CYR, serif]it=[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman CYR, serif]1: 18 million). AA said, that she is ANR. Both had C-HV. [/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman CYR, serif]Only one of 18 million[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman CYR, serif] women could say it. DNA-tests (with reliability 1:6,000) would apply[/FONT][FONT=Arial CYR, sans-serif] it ([/FONT][FONT=Arial CYR, sans-serif]AA=ANR[/FONT][FONT=Arial CYR, sans-serif]) to [/FONT][FONT=Arial CYR, sans-serif]3 thousand [/FONT][FONT=Arial CYR, sans-serif]women ([/FONT][FONT=Arial CYR, sans-serif]from these 18 million[/FONT][FONT=Arial CYR, sans-serif])!!![/FONT]
[FONT=Arial CYR, sans-serif]The medical statistics of a heavy case of HV (1:13,000) [/FONT][FONT=Arial CYR, sans-serif]would [/FONT][FONT=Arial CYR, sans-serif]show, that only one of 13 thousand women could apply to be ANR, while DNA-tests (with reliability 1:6,000) [/FONT][FONT=Arial CYR, sans-serif]could [/FONT][FONT=Arial CYR, sans-serif]apply[/FONT][FONT=Arial CYR, sans-serif] i[/FONT][FONT=Arial CYR, sans-serif]t[/FONT][FONT=Arial CYR, sans-serif] to two women (from these 13,000). [/FONT]

 

[Elspeth]

What makes you think the 1 in 6000 is referring to mistakes? It isn't the reliability of the test they're talking about, it's the probability, since an mtDNA profile isn't unique, that a match would be coincidental rather than indicating relatedness. The probability would alter depending on the rarity of the sequence in question.