Many years back, when Mark Germain was known as “Mr. KFI,” a doting caller told him he was “one in a million.” Germain replied that that means there are 7 people in the greater Los Angeles area who are exactly like him. In that vein, Jason Felch and Maura Dolan of the L.A. Times have an interesting article on “Arizona searches,” whereby a statewide DNA database is searched for internal matches to see how many individuals within it randomly match to each other. Most of these matches are to be expected. After all, while the odds of two DNA profiles matching are extremely remote, the odds of someone matching randomly to someone else are damned close to one if you repeat that experiment enough times. In the case of Arizona’s database, which included 65,000 unique records in 2001, that means Kathryn Troyer effectively made 4,225,000,000 comparisons in one fell swoop, yielding 100 expected matches and 44 unexpected ones. The article doesn’t say what the statistical margin of error was, so it’s impossible to tell from the article - and perhaps from the Arizona study alone - whether the usually cited odds are accurate. The real issue here, as far as I am concerned, is that the FBI is asking us to trust their estimates, while fighting tooth and nail against any serious efforts to test them empirically.

Also chuckleworthy is the objection that testing an entire database against itself greatly increases the odds of a match being found. Of course it does, but so too (albeit to a lesser extent) do database searches, whereby a single DNA sample is tested against an entire database of non-suspects as a method of choosing a suspect (cf. Mike Nifong’s infamous “no wrong answers” police lineup). If we are serious about DNA evidence as science, rather than AGW-esque “consensus” that we are all just bullied into believing without proof, then Arizona searches ought to be conducted nationwide. Then the results should be published and explained, in context. If the tests ultimately show that the FBI’s best estimates were correct, great. But if they show anything else, we need to know.

UPDATE: Instapundit has more. Patterico, alas, has less. David Kaye has much more.

the L.A. Times has an interesting article on partial DNA searches, prompting three posts by Patterico (so far) and others by Eugene Volokh and Radley Balko. In a nutshell, John Puckett was convicted in 2004 of raping and murdering Diana Sylvester in 1972, mostly on account of a partial DNA match. Like many of the older DNA cases, it wasn’t possible to run a full DNA match, which is essentially failsafe, but just a partial one, which has roughly a 1 in 1.1 million chance of matching the wrong person.

Sounds pretty damning, doesn’t it? I mean really, if the odds of a false match are really 1.1 million to one, what are the chances they matched the wrong guy? Pretty high, actually, if you searched 1.1 million times. Buy enough lottery tickets, and you will win. In Puckett’s case, they didn’t search 1.1 million records but did search 338,000, resulting in roughly one-in-three odds that someone would get falsely matched, or about 1 in 4 that exactly one person would. The actual odds are a bit lower than that once you control for the uncertain odds that the killer was in fact in that database; presumably, if he was, he certainly would have gotten a hit, while the odds are only 1 in 3 that a second person also would have. Only one person was matched, so we can be certain that either Puckett was matched because he was the killer, or he got unlucky based on 1 in 4 odds, times whatever the odds were that the killer was not in the database. Without knowing the odds of the killer being in the database it’s tough to say how serious that error was in Puckett’s case, but easy to say exactly how serious it is in any case like Puckett’s where we don’t know for a fact that the defendant was the only match (or the only match to a person who doesn’t have a 100% airtight alibi): 1 in 3.

Some would argue that a partial DNA match that shows 1 in 1.1 million odds against a previously identified suspect, but only 1 in 3 odds against a suspect for whom the DNA semi-match was itself the basis of the suspicion, should not be admissible in court. I disagree. Anything that says you’re twice as likely to be guilty as innocent is highly probative of the charge. It is crucial, however, that such evidence be presented for what it is: enough to make you think he likely did it, but without other, unrelated corroborating evidence, not nearly enough to extinguish reasonable doubt.

I should note that the same math problem, known as the “prosecutor’s fallacy,” likely occurs every day even with full DNA matches. There, the error is equally lame in theory but harmless in practice. Without knowing exactly how long the odds have to be in order to surpass reasonable doubt, I am pretty confident that that number is somewhere north of 3 but south of 1 million. So if a prosecutor tells you that the odds of a false full match are 1 in 1 quintillion, but neglects to tell you that he found the guy by combing through a database of 1 million individuals, all that means is that the odds have fallen “all the way down” to 1 in 1 trillion. No big whoop.

Now that it’s become pretty clear to just about everyone in the world except Wendy “All Rape Charges Are Real” Murphy and Nancy “What She Said” Grace that the real criminals in the Duke lacrosse rape shakedown case are Mike Nifong and Crystal Gail Mangum, can anyone offer me a rational explanation of why the identities of Collin “I didn’t do it, buttmunch” Finnerty, David “what mustache?” Evans and Reade “I wasn’t even there, asshole” Seligman are plastered all over the news media but Mangum’s name is not? I understand the general policy of respecting the privacy of real rape victims, but even even that doesn’t really make sense in the case of a stripper, who is unlikely to be any more shamed by being named as a rape victim than the rest of us are to be shamed by becoming victims of any other violent crime, whose victims’ identities do not receive any such protection. Think about it, Mangum’s career consists of stripping for drunk, horny kids, and her panties have been found to contain the DNA of just about every able-bodied male in Durham who doesn’t play lacrosse. What the hell kind of shame could news of a real rape cause to her? If anything, it would provide further shame to her attackers, as it would be evidence that the uberslut from hell will have sex with just about anyone except them. Besides, we’re far past the stage where anyone in his right mind believes a rape occurred. The real story now is that idiot D.A.’s decision to follow up on her obviously false accusation, the falsity of which becomes even more obvious when you Google a name like Crystal Gail Mangum rather than a politically correct euphemism like Duke lacrosse exotic dancer. Now that she’s far more likely to be a criminal than a victim, I say she should be entitled to NO privacy, certainly not any more than her victims got.

Does anyone really think I’m wrong? If so, why? Anyone? Bueller? Mangum?

More here.

Chyrotia Graham, the alleged scumbag of an alleged woman who was allegedly arrested for allegedly using her infant son, Jarron Troop, as a club to hit her alleged boyfriend, Deangelo Troop, is arguing that she “didn’t know her baby was a baby” at the time of the incident. Apparently Troop, the intended victim of her assault, agrees:

“People are trying to make a big deal about it, but she did not do it on purpose. … It was just a mistake,” he said.

Just an itty-bitty mistake, which anyone could have made. I mean, what mother has never hated the father of her child so much that she’d love to pick up any large object in sight, without even checking to make sure it isn’t … her own goddamned kid? OK, so maybe Graham made an itsy-bitsy boo-boo, and now her kid suffered a fractured skull and a bleeding brain, all because she hates her son’s father more than she loves her son. Don’t make such a big deal out of it. Gee whiz. Nobody’s perfect, ya know.

To his credit (?), Troop himself seemed to think it was a bigger deal at the time of the incident:

Police said Troop punched Graham in the eye after she put the baby down, and police photos later showed her eye blackened and swollen shut.

Authorities said there was no indication that Troop had hit his son but that they were reviewing the case to see if any charges might be warranted.

“I don’t anticipate any at this time,” Erie police Capt. Frank Kwitowski said Monday.

That’s understandable. I don’t think Pennsylvania law allows the authorities to prosecute someone for not hitting his victim hard enough.

Dave Kopel argues that it’s time to allow trained teachers to carry concealed weapons in school. An interesting discussion follows. Professor Bainbridge offers the predictable “What? Are you crazy? Didn’t you know guns can run amok on ther own?!” response.

UPDATE: (Formerly?) Venomous (currently) Kate says Missouri Governor Matt Blunt is considering the idea as well.

The last time Congress was de-Foleyated, both houses changed control, and this one doesn’t look like a very good sign, either. Congressman Mark Foley, until recently a shoo-in, has resigned over some rather disturbing emails and apparently much more graphic IMs. Worse, all this happened late enough in the game that Foley’s replacement will have to run under Foley’s disgraced name rather than his own. It’s not as though the Florida Supreme Court would undermine Florida election law to help a Republican, after all. So the most likely result is that this “safe” Republican seat will fall into Democrat hands, while jeopardizing the seats of every other Republican who either knew what Foley was up to, or can’t prove they didn’t between now and Election Day.

I may be a lone voice in the wilderness, but I think it is a terrible thing that Republicans are so quick to throw one of their own under the bus. OK, maybe he’s a sexual predator and all, but he’s also been a champion of federal legislation targeting sexual predators, much more so than the last Democrat who held his seat did, and more son than his likely Democrat replacement will. Foley’s a son of a bitch, but he’s our son of a bitch. Foley’s execrable behavior in private towards adolescent boys is objectionable and offensive. But his private sins don’t vitiate the public good he accomplished and is continuing to accomplish. Human beings are complex, multi-faceted creatures; of few is this more true than of Mark Foley. Is he a man who has repeatedly abused his power in sexual relationships with subordinates? Yes. Is this a man who has been an important ally on other issues? Yes. He’s not either a good or a bad man — he’s manifestly both. And we can honor the good in him and lament the bad at the same time without contradicting ourselves. We can work with him when he’s right, and excoriate him when he’s wrong. Foley’s private failings are better known than the failings of any other human being alive. But compared to the other living men who have served in Congress, he has clearly been the one most committed to protecting children from sexual predators. And for that, he deserves our — qualified — gratitude.

That last paragraph was, of course, a total and complete crock. If it made sense to you, however, I’ll bet this does, too.

Please explain why whoever did this should be allowed to live out the rest of his/her/its natural life.

UPDATE: A suspect is in custody. Guilty or no, bonus points to any open borders advocate who can explain why he should have been in the country at all. Extra points to Andrew McCarthy for explaining why he should get a fair trial even though he didn’t give her one.

All Kenneth Lay’s life, he has contributed to something. In the 1970s, he contributed to society by serving as a regulator for the Department of the Interior. In 1985, he contributed to the creation of Enron by merging Houston Natural Gas Co. and Inter-North. Since then, he has contributed to too many charities to count, and has also made substantial contributions to political campaigns on both sides of the aisle. He contributed to California’s energy crunch in the early 00s, and then proceeded to contribute to the demise of the company he had helped to create, along with a major accounting firm he did not. He contributed to investors’ losses by urging them to buy Enron stock while he sold. When the company folded, he simultaneously contributed to both the unemployment and overemployment rates, laying off younger workers who wanted to work while forcing older workers to delay retirement when their 401(k)s became worthless. As a result, he contributed to the headaches of legitimate businessmen across the country, who must now comply with that dreadful Sarbanes-Oxley law that treats every CEO as if he were Ken Lay.

Now, he’s contributing to global warming.

5/16 UPDATE: I have learned that NCO’s attempt to collect on my phony debt, while sleazy in a number of ways, was probably not fraudulent. Apparently, Bank of America’s policy is to hand questionable debts over to collection agencies immediately if they are assessed against accounts that have been closed - and also to hide this information where ordinary customer service representatives cannot find it. After getting a notice in writing from NCO, I called B of A and got the number for their “recovery” unit, which can see the transactions their ordinary customer service people can’t. The validity of that debt remains in dispute, but NCO’s role in attempting to collect it is not wrongful in and of itself (their methods are, but that’s another issue). As such, please note that to the best of my knowledge, NCO is merely a sleazy collection agency, not a fraud ring.

If you get any collection calls from “NCL NCO Financial Systems” or asking you to call (800) 394-3194, don’t give them any money. Call your local police and the FTC, instead. Today I received a voice message from a certain “Mr. Martin” of that allegedly existent outfit, informing me that it was “very important” I contact him at (800) 394-3194, Ext 5644, but neglecting to tell me why. When I called I was told that Bank of America had filed a claim against my Social Security Number for a $483.61 overdraft, and that it was now going to go immediately on my credit report if I didn’t pay up over the phone. When I pressed him for further details about the claim, he insisted he doesn’t get that information from the bank, so I’d have to contact B of A instead at (800) 432-1000. I was a tad bit skeptical, for a number of reasons:

1. B of A had never contacted me about any overdrafts.
2. I don’t even bank at B of A anymore.
3. When I did bank at B of A, I never had any overdrafts.
4. When I banked at B of A, I had overdraft protection, so if I had had any overdrafts they would have been charged to the associated credit card, not .
5. When I closed out my account at B of A, the bank confirmed I had a zero balance.
6. My old account at B of A was based in a California branch, which uses a different customer service number, (800) 622-8731. The number “Mr. Martin” gave me, (800) 432-1000, is a national number used in most other states. Not an unreasonable guess, however, if you’re trying to scam some random guy in Virginia whose credit report implies that he has a B of A account.

Unsurprisingly, my skepticism turned out to be warranted; a quick call to B of A confirmed that no such claim existed, that they wouldn’t have turned it over to these guys if it had. As it was now pretty clear NCL Financial Systems was a scam, I called them back to request a mailing address so I could send them a check. “Mr. Martin” informed me that they can only accept payment over the phone, and threatened to ding my credit report immediately if I did not pay up. I told him I had never been served with any demand in writing, and he put me on hold for 15 minutes. After that, I was handed over to a female “supervisor,” who reiterated that they can’t accept payment by any method other than telephone because the charge was now “delinquent.” I then requested that she fax me a copy of the report from the bank, so I could investigate it from there. Of course she wouldn’t do that, either, presumably for “privacy” reasons. O-kay.

UPDATE: Apparently I misheard their name, which is NCO Financial Systems, not NCL. I suspect this may be by design; call the 800 number yourself and see if you think they called themselves NCO or NCL. They’ve got plenty of Rip-Off Reports, both under their real name and under their accidentally-on-purpose misheard one. They also have a web site of their own.

UPDATE x2: The story keeps getting weirder. Now, after talking to a second round of customer service, it appears that some schlock made a charge against my account on April 25, a whopping 10 days before NCO started hounding me over this “delinquent” debt, in the amount of … you guessed it … $483.61. Meanwhile, some other schlock allowed the transaction to go forward even though the account had been closed for more than a month, and schlock #3 must have passed the information along to NCO as a joke.

UPDATE x3: See my comments at the topic of the post. B of A has finally fessed up to having turned this “debt” over to collections. That doesn’t make NCO’s collection methods any less sleazy, of course, but it does dispel the notion that they are a fraud ring, as I had originally suspected.

Today’s Dog Trainer Staff Writer Henry Weinstein illustrated once again the newspaper’s policy of identifying ideological biases of one side but not the other. Take a look at how he describes anti-death penalty activist Franklin Zimring vs. pro-death penalty activist Kent Scheiddiger:

Whichever way Fogel eventually rules on the challenge, an appeal is a virtual certainty, which makes it likely that there will no more executions until 2007 at the earliest, according to UC Berkeley law professor Frank Zimring, an expert on capital punishment.

“I think the smart money at this point would bet against any more executions in California in 2006, and I think it goes beyond that,” Zimring said.

Kent Scheidegger, legal director of the Criminal Justice Legal Foundation, a pro-capital punishment group in Sacramento, conceded it was “quite possible” there would be no more executions this year.

So in Timesspeak, anyone who opposes capital punishment is an expert, while any expert in supporting it is an advocate.

Meanwhile, here on the right coast, murder victim Angela Felton finally got the justice that continues to be denied to Terri Winchell.