From: keith_nuttle@sbcglobal.net   
      
   On 11/17/2019 11:28 AM, MB wrote:   
   > 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.   
   >    
   Please don't interpret what I said, DNA matches has proven several lines   
   in my family for which I could never get good documentation.  While the    
   documented evidence still has not improved, I have had many DNA matches    
   in the ancestors siblings family. Two of these matches were t0 3rd great   
   grandparents   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)