Some (many?) of us in the genetic genealogy community are not happy with Ms. Fitzpatrick's methods and ethics here. She obtained at least some of the information she used by deliberately deceiving a colleague as to her purposes. She refuses to disclose her "proprietary techniques" of analysis, making some experts wonder about the techniques' credibility and the accuracy of her statements. The media then took this magic house of cards and built it into a palace of half-truths and misinterpretation.
To dissect some of the statements made in the story:
* "closest match " is not necessarily a significant match and may include many unrelated men. Let's say I gave you three guesses at a number between 1 and 100; you might guess 2, 10 and 23. If the number were 97, 23 would be "closest" but it wouldn't be very close. Many DNA "matches" have no more genealogical significance than that.
* It is a mistake to conclude that a Y-DNA match (even a significant one) to a Robert Fuller of four centuries ago is from any of his descendants; it may be from a descendant of his brother or cousin.
* Moreover, that the perpetrator's surname is Fuller may have a probability of less than 70% and possibly much less. My studies indicate that surnames are associated with Y chromsomes much less strongly than commonly believed.
* "physical characteristics can help detectives narrow their search," - Physical characteristics have nothing to do with Y-DNA, which determines only (so far as is known) a male gender. Physical characteristics are determined by the other 22 chromosome pairs.
There may be worse things than failing to catch a murderer. Among them may be perverting our free society.
-rt_/)
= new reply since forum marked as read
