From: MB@nospam.net   
      
   On 17/11/2019 14:18, knuttle wrote:   
   > DNA was not wrong, just miss interpreted.  DNA said the baby was a   
   > member of the wife's family, it was.  However DNA can not determine the   
   > exact generation when the match occurs, and the court did not consider   
   > the supporting evidence.   
   >   
   > As genealogist we also do the same thing. We consider a DNA match proof   
   > of a relationship but forget the document that supports the DNA match.   
   >   
   > I have many DNA matches that I have ignored.  The match is with a person   
   > who has a couple of generation in their tree, and the match predicts a   
   > match several generations before the first generation in their tree.  I   
   > don't feel I have the time to explorer their family when I have better   
   > matches.   
      
   I don't think I wrote that it was wrong just the way it was used and if   
   the defendant cannot afford a good lawyer the they can get away with   
   making the jury think that their interpretation cannot be wrong.   
      
   You tend to get a lot of probably spurious DNA matches but best not   
   write off without checking.  I found an illegitimate child of an   
   ancestor from a DNA match that did not make sense at first because I was   
   not seeing any names I recognised.   
      
   I was also able confirm the illegitimacy of some born in the early 19th   
   Century through someone descended from a 3x Grandparent.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)