Must the random man be unrelated? A lingering misconception in forensic genetics

Abstract

A nearly universal practice among forensic DNA scientists includes mentioning an unrelated person as the possible alternative source of a DNA stain, when one in fact refers to an unknown person. Hence, experts typically express their conclusions with statements like: “The probability of the DNA evidence is X times higher if the suspect is the source of the trace than if another person unrelated to the suspect is the source of the trace.” Published forensic guidelines encourage such allusions to the unrelated person. However, as the authors show here, rational reasoning and population genetic principles do not require the conditioning of the evidential value on the unrelatedness between the unknown individual and the person of interest (e.g., a suspect). Surprisingly, this important semantic issue has been overlooked for decades, despite its potential to mislead the interpretation of DNA evidence by criminal justice system stakeholders.