• 14th_cylon@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    with big enough database you simple have every single person in it. that still doesn’t back up the quote i disputed in any way. can you find source of the quote? i’d be interested to see the original.

    • fishos@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      They caught the Bay Area Strangler(or whatever his title was) by finding a dna relative match on one of these services and using that to narrow down suspects. DNA can absolutely be used to narrow things down without just having a direct 1:1 match saying it’s THAT person.

      • 14th_cylon@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        they “narrowed it down” to about 1000 people. that is the case covered by video i linked in my comment above.

        the sentence The fbi estimates they can use dna evidance to single dowm the possible people to 2 or 3 out of the entiriry of the us is still nonsense

        • Wogi@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          It’s not exclusively DNA they’re using.

          It never was exclusively DNA.

          There are location, sex, age, and other factors to consider that help narrow it down. You could have 1000 close matches, but only half a dozen or so that could actually have committed the crime, and only a few of them that fit the profile.