Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "Scott Watson and being Judith.":
Probability in nDNA is based on matching 9 of 13 loci in one chromosome then
calculating the number of searches needed to find another person on a
population the same 9 of 13 matching loci. For instance,if you start with
65,000 people and do a pairwise match of all of them, you are actually making
over 2 billion separate comparisons (65,000 * 64,999/2)or a probability 2
billion to 1. If you aren’t just looking for a match on 9 specific loci, but
rather on any 9 of 13 loci, then for each of those pairs of people there are
over 700 different combinations that are being searched, so all told, you end
up doing about 1.4 trillion searches!
The probability in the Sounds nDNA was given 28,000 to 1 or 28 thousand
searches so given an unrelated population [female] of 2 million the number of
matching locus was likely only 2-3 of 13 possible matches so in fact the DNA
evidence is very weak as there would be several thousand females who would
match at 2 loci. To find two unrelated people who matched at all 13 loci would
be 114 trillion to 1 Only Identical Twins have identical nDNA though siblings
can be identified and biological relationship to a parent identified because
the number of locus likely to be the same is known but in forensic science DNA
testing it is never to be assumed the sample and control are related as that
eliminates the need to search multiple times. All the tests in the sounds
testing proved was that the hair alleged to have been found on Blade was from
Olivia OR Amelia Hope as the Mitochondrial DNA [mDNA]testing and they were both
their mothers daughters. The mDNA was contaminated by foreign nDNA and as the
same hairs were nDNA tested those tests contaminated as well. The usual source
of hair contamination is a shared comb or hair brush. Given the control hairs
were also contaminated it is very likely they had a common source, Olivia hair
brush where the control samples were from and was delivered to the ESR lab
about a half hour before the hairs were "found".
Okay, I don't know who anonymous is. But one thing I can tell is that he or she knows what they're talking about. I have previously read about the possibility of the 2 hairs belonging to either Olivia or her sister, also about the cross contamination by shared brush or comb. I know from evidence that the hairs were 'missed' on an earlier search but found on a subsequent search after 'samples' were delivered to the ESR lab. What I didn't know was the claim that the samples had so shortly been in the possession of the ESR when the hairs were 'found' on the blanket. I have read about the sample bag being 'split.' I'm going to ask a friend to apply under the OIC Act requesting the times relevant to the delivery of the samples and the 'new' blanket search.
I'll just touch on a few 'knowns' here, but Minister Collins and Ms McDonald QC have publicly stated after a recent review using the powers of the Royal Prerogative of Mercy, that the 2 'hairs' are the bonding agent which holds 'together' the case against Watson. Both the Watson case and that of Pora share the same prosecutor. The Watson case, along with those of David Bain and Arthur Thomas share the common fact of critical 'evidence' being found on subsequent searches that was apparently missed earlier. Earlier on this blog a photo is produced of a yacht that could match the one that didn't 'exist' according to OIC of the Sounds Inquiry: Pope. Most of the country understands that both the description and identification of Watson have been recanted by the original witnesses, also that the evidence of the 'scratches' under the cabin hatch, the 'fresh' painting of The Blade, the 'complete' wiping down of The Blade subsequent to the disappearance of the couple have strong replies from those defending Watson. So strong in fact that the Minister appears to be forced to 'rely' on 2 hairs - which it can be argued 'appeared' just when police needed them and by sheer co-incidence just after they'd gathered more evidence that happens, as we see, to be the evidence which our Minister relies upon.
For those interested in reading about the Exercise of the Royal Prerogative of Mercy try M Travis, May 1998 for RPOM in NZ. Here is one extract that our Minister and certainly not her 'advisor' McDonald appear to comprehend, firstly of the nature of the test of RPOM, how it is in fact reviewable and not just merely a opportunity of the Minister of the day to sweep a public safe guard under the carpet, treat it with contempt, nor the applicant or indeed public interest....
de Freitas v Benny  (Court of Appeal in Trinidad), Lord Diplock observed
that “mercy is not the subject of legal rights [but] begins where legal rights
end.” Christopher Gelber considered this a ruling that “the exercise of the
prerogative of mercy was inherently extra-legal in nature and therefore not
justiciable,” as did Lord Roskill in the G.C.H.Q. case  A.C. 374.
Furthermore it cannot be denied that the Crown’s ability to pardon displays the
necessary characteristics of a true prerogative; yet there are those like
Watkins L.J. who reject the test of justiciability “in favour of an examination
of the court’s capacity to weigh the competing issues of principle in each
case.” Watkins considered the courts to be competent enough to review the
prerogative of mercy.'