Skip to main content
Log in

It was one of my brothers

  • Original Article
  • Published:
International Journal of Legal Medicine Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

When DNA evidence is used to implicate a suspect, it may be of interest to know whether it is likely that the suspect's near relatives also share the suspect's DNA profile. In this study we discuss methods for evaluating the probability that at least one of a set of the suspect's full or half-siblings shares the suspect's DNA profile. We present three such methods: exact calculation, estimation via Monte Carlo simulations, and estimation by means of sandwiching the probability between an upper and a lower bound. We show that, under many circumstances, this upper bound itself provides an extremely quick and accurate estimate of the probability that at least one of the relatives matches the suspect's profile.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Ayres KL (2000) Relatedness testing in subdivided populations. Forensic Sci Int 114:107–115

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Balding DJ, Donnelly P (1995) Inference in forensic identification (with discussion). J R Stat Soc, A 158:21–53

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Balding DJ, Nicholas RA (1994) DNA profile match probability calculation: how to allow for population stratification, relatedness, database selection and single bands. Forensic Sci Int 64:125–140

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Belin TR, Gjertson DW, Hu MY (1997) Summarizing DNA evidence when relatives are possible suspects. J Am Stat Assoc 92:706–716

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Brookfield JFY (1994) The effect of relatives on the likelihood ration associated with DNA profile evidence in criminal cases. J Forensic Sci Soc 34:193–197

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Donnelly P (1995) Nonindependence of matches at different loci in DNA profiles: quantifying the effect of close relatives on the match probability. Heredity 75:26–34

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Evett IW (1992) Evaluating DNA profiles in a case where the defence is “It was my brother”. J Forensic Sci Soc 31:5–14

    Google Scholar 

  8. Fukshanky N, Bär W (2000) Biostatistics for mixed strains: the case of tested relatives of non-tested suspect. Int J Leg Med 114:78–82

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Griffiths RC (1979) A transition density expansion for a multi-allele diffusion model. Adv Appl Probab 11:310–325

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Hu YQ, Fung WK (2003) Interpreting DNA mixtures with the presence of relatives. Int J Leg Med 117:39–45

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Fung WK, Chung Y, Wong D (2002) Power of exclusion revisited: probability of excluding relatives of the true father from paternity. Int J Leg Med 116:64–67

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Lee JW, Lee HS, Park M, Hwang JJ (1999) Paternity probability when a relative of the father is an alleged father. Sci Justice 39:223–230

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. National Research Council (1996) The evaluation of forensic DNA evidence. National Academy Press, Washington DC

    Google Scholar 

  14. Weir BS (1994) The effects of inbreeding on forensic calculations. Annu Rev Genet 28:597–621

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Weir BS (2003) Forensics. In: Balding D, Bishop M, Cannings C (eds) Handbook of statistical genetics, Chap 27. Wiley, Chichester, pp 830–852

    Google Scholar 

  16. Weir BS, Hill HG (1993) Population genetics of DNA profiles. J Forensic Sci Soc 33:218–225

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work was supported in part by NIH grant GM45344 and NSF grant DMS9819895.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Amy D. Anderson.

Appendix

Appendix

The probability that both individuals in a pair of the suspect's relatives share the suspect's single-locus genotype can be found by summing over all possible genotypes among their parents in a manner similar to that described in Materials and methods. The results for various relative pairs are given as in the following equations, using the notation described previously and the convention that C j =(1+)(1+(j−1)θ)...(1+θ).

For the case in which both individuals in the pair are full siblings to \({\user1{{\wp }}}\), we derive:

$$\Pr {\left( {{\text{both match}}\left| {P = A_{1} A_{1} } \right.} \right)} = \frac{{8M_{{1,2}} {\left( {1 + 2\theta + M_{{1,3}} } \right)} + M_{{2,1}} M_{{2,0}} }}{{16C_{2} }}$$
(10)
$$\Pr {\left( {{\text{both match}}\left| {P = A_{1} A_{2} } \right.} \right)} = {{\left[ {{\left( {1 + 2\theta } \right)}{\left( {4M_{{1,1}} + 4M_{{2,1}} + M_{{3,0}} } \right)} + 12M_{{1,1}} M_{{2,1}} } \right]}} \mathord{\left/ {\vphantom {{{\left[ {{\left( {1 + 2\theta } \right)}{\left( {4M_{{1,1}} + 4M_{{2,1}} + M_{{3,0}} } \right)} + 12M_{{1,1}} M_{{2,1}} } \right]}} {16C_{2} }}} \right. \kern-\nulldelimiterspace} {16C_{2} }$$
(11)

The next equations hold when one individual is a full sibling and the other is a half-sibling to \({\user1{{\wp }}}\), or (same formula) when both individuals are half-siblings to the suspect but are full siblings to each other.

$$\Pr {\left( {{\text{both match}}\left| {P = A_{1} A_{1} } \right.} \right)} = \frac{{M_{{1,2}} {\left( {8M_{{1,4}} M_{{1,3}} + 6M_{{1,3}} M_{{2,0}} + M_{{2,1}} M_{{2,0}} } \right)}}}{{8C_{3} }}$$
(12)
$$\Pr {\left( {{\text{both match}}\left| {P = A_{1} A_{2} } \right.} \right)} = {\left[ {{\left( {1 + 3\theta } \right)}{\left( {2M_{{1,2}} M_{{1,1}} + 2M_{{2,2}} M_{{2,1}} + 10M_{{1,1}} M_{{2,1}} + M_{{3,0}} {\left( {M_{{1,1}} + M_{{2,1}} } \right)}} \right)} + 6M_{{1,1}} M_{{2,1}} {\left( {M_{{1,2}} + M_{{2,2}} } \right)}} \right]}/16C_{3} .$$
(13)

For pairs of individuals in which both individuals are half-siblings to the suspect and are half-siblings to each other, the following equations hold:

$$\Pr {\left( {{\text{both match}}\left| {P = A_{1} A_{1} } \right.} \right)} = \frac{{M_{{1,3}} M_{{1,2}} {\left( {3M_{{1,5}} + 1} \right)}}}{{4C_{3} }}$$
(14)
$$Pr{\left( {{\text{both match}}\left| {P = A_{1} A_{2} } \right.} \right)} = {\left[ {{\left( {1 + 3\theta } \right)}{\left( {M_{{1,2}} M_{{1,1}} + M_{{2,2}} M_{{2,1}} } \right)} + 6M_{{1,1}} M_{{2,1}} {\left( {M_{{1,2}} + M_{{2,2}} } \right)}} \right]}/8C_{3} $$
(15)

The remaining half-sibling case is the situation in which the two half-siblings are unrelated to each other (i.e., one is related to the suspect through the suspect's mother and the other is related through the father). The equations for this type of half-sib pair are as follows:

$$\begin{aligned} & \Pr {\left( {{\text{both match}}\left| {P = A_{1} A_{1} } \right.} \right)} = {\left[ {M_{{1,3}} M_{{1,2}} {\left( {4M_{{1,5}} M_{{1,4}} + 4M_{{1,4}} M_{{2,0}} + M_{{2,1}} M_{{2,0}} } \right)}} \right]}/4C_{4} \\ & \\ \end{aligned} $$
(16)
$$\Pr {\left( {{\text{both match}}\left| {P = A_{1} A_{2} } \right.} \right)} = M_{{1,1}} M_{{2,1}} {\left[ {{\left( {1 + 4\theta } \right)}{\left( {3M_{{1,2}} + 3M_{{2,2}} + M_{{3,0}} } \right)} + 4M_{{1,2}} M_{{2,2}} } \right]}/4C_{4} .$$
(17)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Anderson, A.D., Weir, B.S. It was one of my brothers. Int J Legal Med 120, 95–104 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00414-005-0017-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00414-005-0017-2

Keywords

Navigation