quote:

ORIGINAL: muhly22222

So much about this case stinks. The fact that it took so long for the report to make it to the prosecutor's desk, the detective apparently trying to deter the victim from continuing on, and of course the protective halo that gets placed around major college football programs, such as Florida State. Add to it that Winston might win the Heisman this year, and you've got all kinds of reasons why people want this case to disappear.

I'm normally not a conspiracy theorist in the slightest...but I know that there's more going on here than we know about, and I'm positive that somebody is covering something up. And I'm also sure that the FSU program has their fingers in it.

I hope the prosecutor handling this case sticks to his/her guns, and doesn't allow the suspect's position and football talent to persuade him/her to make this go away (if the evidence indicates innocence, that's another story, obviously).

And I'm not saying this as an Ohio State fan.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
What does the DNA test mean?

First of all, it is impossible to prove that DNA came from a specific person unless we were able to obtain the DNA sample of every person on the planet. Instead, what happens is that a number of DNA markers are tested (~20). The more markers that match, the less likely it is that the DNA sample came from somebody else.

In this case, there were enough matches between Winston's sample and the underwear that there is a "one in 2.2 trillion" chance that somebody else has an identical DNA profile. In other words, it is highly unlikely.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
What does the DNA test mean?

First of all, it is impossible to prove that DNA came from a specific person unless we were able to obtain the DNA sample of every person on the planet. Instead, what happens is that a number of DNA markers are tested (~20). The more markers that match, the less likely it is that the DNA sample came from somebody else.

In this case, there were enough matches between Winston's sample and the underwear that there is a "one in 2.2 trillion" chance that somebody else has an identical DNA profile. In other words, it is highly unlikely.

This is wrong top to bottom.

Even if we had a DNA profile from every person in the world we still could not say a particular piece of DNA evidence came from a specific person. The problem is that DNA is collected after the fact, usually at least hours after it left the body of the criminal. In that time decay has been going on and that DNA includes the break down of the chromosomes and the DNA. So the test produces a profile which always is missing some marker loci. The more loci that are missing the more likely a loci that would exclude the suspect is missing.

These claims about the chances of someone else having a matching profile reaching into the billions or trillions is based on a completely erroneous calculation which assumes these markers are randomly distributed in the population. Since DNA is inherited mostly unchanged from both parents it can be expected that siblings will share many markers and other close relatives will share many as well. Furthermore ethnic groups naturally also share markers. When accurate calculations are done based on these factors PCR tests, the most common forensic DNA test, the odds drop from trillions or billions to millions or hundreds of thousands.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
What does the DNA test mean?

First of all, it is impossible to prove that DNA came from a specific person unless we were able to obtain the DNA sample of every person on the planet. Instead, what happens is that a number of DNA markers are tested (~20). The more markers that match, the less likely it is that the DNA sample came from somebody else.

In this case, there were enough matches between Winston's sample and the underwear that there is a "one in 2.2 trillion" chance that somebody else has an identical DNA profile. In other words, it is highly unlikely.

This is wrong top to bottom.

Even if we had a DNA profile from every person in the world we still could not say a particular piece of DNA evidence came from a specific person. The problem is that DNA is collected after the fact, usually at least hours after it left the body of the criminal. In that time decay has been going on and that DNA includes the break down of the chromosomes and the DNA. So the test produces a profile which always is missing some marker loci. The more loci that are missing the more likely a loci that would exclude the suspect is missing.

These claims about the chances of someone else having a matching profile reaching into the billions or trillions is based on a completely erroneous calculation which assumes these markers are randomly distributed in the population. Since DNA is inherited mostly unchanged from both parents it can be expected that siblings will share many markers and other close relatives will share many as well. Furthermore ethnic groups naturally also share markers. When accurate calculations are done based on these factors PCR tests, the most common forensic DNA test, the odds drop from trillions or billions to millions or hundreds of thousands.

Fortunately we have an expert to advise us.
You do realize that the main point here is not about Winston's guilt but about the police discouraging the filing of charges and declining to inform the D A about the case.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
What does the DNA test mean?

First of all, it is impossible to prove that DNA came from a specific person unless we were able to obtain the DNA sample of every person on the planet. Instead, what happens is that a number of DNA markers are tested (~20). The more markers that match, the less likely it is that the DNA sample came from somebody else.

In this case, there were enough matches between Winston's sample and the underwear that there is a "one in 2.2 trillion" chance that somebody else has an identical DNA profile. In other words, it is highly unlikely.

This is wrong top to bottom.

Even if we had a DNA profile from every person in the world we still could not say a particular piece of DNA evidence came from a specific person. The problem is that DNA is collected after the fact, usually at least hours after it left the body of the criminal. In that time decay has been going on and that DNA includes the break down of the chromosomes and the DNA. So the test produces a profile which always is missing some marker loci. The more loci that are missing the more likely a loci that would exclude the suspect is missing.

These claims about the chances of someone else having a matching profile reaching into the billions or trillions is based on a completely erroneous calculation which assumes these markers are randomly distributed in the population. Since DNA is inherited mostly unchanged from both parents it can be expected that siblings will share many markers and other close relatives will share many as well. Furthermore ethnic groups naturally also share markers. When accurate calculations are done based on these factors PCR tests, the most common forensic DNA test, the odds drop from trillions or billions to millions or hundreds of thousands.

Fortunately we have an expert to advise us.
You do realize that the main point here is not about Winston's guilt but about the police discouraging the filing of charges and declining to inform the D A about the case.

I do realize that but when the press puts out these completely wrong claims people listen and it gets innocent people convicted.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
What does the DNA test mean?

First of all, it is impossible to prove that DNA came from a specific person unless we were able to obtain the DNA sample of every person on the planet. Instead, what happens is that a number of DNA markers are tested (~20). The more markers that match, the less likely it is that the DNA sample came from somebody else.

In this case, there were enough matches between Winston's sample and the underwear that there is a "one in 2.2 trillion" chance that somebody else has an identical DNA profile. In other words, it is highly unlikely.

This is wrong top to bottom.

Even if we had a DNA profile from every person in the world we still could not say a particular piece of DNA evidence came from a specific person. The problem is that DNA is collected after the fact, usually at least hours after it left the body of the criminal. In that time decay has been going on and that DNA includes the break down of the chromosomes and the DNA. So the test produces a profile which always is missing some marker loci. The more loci that are missing the more likely a loci that would exclude the suspect is missing.

These claims about the chances of someone else having a matching profile reaching into the billions or trillions is based on a completely erroneous calculation which assumes these markers are randomly distributed in the population. Since DNA is inherited mostly unchanged from both parents it can be expected that siblings will share many markers and other close relatives will share many as well. Furthermore ethnic groups naturally also share markers. When accurate calculations are done based on these factors PCR tests, the most common forensic DNA test, the odds drop from trillions or billions to millions or hundreds of thousands.

Fortunately we have an expert to advise us.
You do realize that the main point here is not about Winston's guilt but about the police discouraging the filing of charges and declining to inform the D A about the case.

I do realize that but when the press puts out these completely wrong claims people listen and it gets innocent people convicted.

Right the Florida State GB is going to get railroaded in Tallahassee.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

Not him but some actually innocent guy.

So does this mean you are referring to some theoretical case unrelated to this situation?
It also sounds like you assume Winston is guilty.