|
此文章由 猫儿不笨 原创或转贴,不代表本站立场和观点,版权归 oursteps.com.au 和作者 猫儿不笨 所有!转贴必须注明作者、出处和本声明,并保持内容完整
The appellant’s submissions referred to row 13 of Annexure 1 which sets out the match statistics for an inferred contributor of 11% weight on a four assumed contributor run of TrueAllele that involved 100,000 simulations. It yielded match statistics of 4.45, 4.37 and 4.71 for Lily, Irene and Brenda Lin respectively. [515] The submissions referred to the evidence set out at [159] in which Dr Perlin addressed Brenda Lin’s match statistics in his evidence‑in‑chief. It was submitted that, although Dr Perlin mentioned Brenda Lin’s “presence” in this genotype at the 2016 trial, “the fact that her match statistic was higher than her mother and aunt was clearly not explained – the opposite impression was given by the evidence”. [516] In oral submissions on appeal, Senior Counsel for the appellant referred to this row and the figure Dr Perlin mentioned in [159] of 3.16, but noted that he did not report they corresponded to an inferred genotype that was said to be a male genotype. [517] It was submitted that Dr Perlin “entirely and inappropriately glossed over” these two figures (ie, 4.71 and 3.16) in his evidence at the 2016 trial. [518] |
|