In addition, it illuminates the workings of a theory of probative value and inductive proof that evidence scholars have been propounding for the some time. I am grateful to Bruce Budowle, Jay Koehler, William Thompson, Bruce Weir, and especially David Balding for comments on a draft of this paper. The DNA at the crime scene may come from the defendant's blood, semen or saliva. In other cases, the victim's DNA may be found on the defendant's property. Although the discussion here explicitly refers only to the former situation, the analysis applies to both methods of linking a defendant to a crime.
Some courts seem to require such testimony.
Nor, when all estimates of the frequency are in the millionths or billionths, would it be meaningless to inform the jury that there is a match that is known to be extremely rare in the general population. Thompson, supra note 5. See, e.g., People v. Simpson, No. Thompson, supra note 5, at 60. Although this theory has deep roots in the works of logicians, philosophers, psychologists and statisticians, much of the exposition and development in the legal literature has come from the Michigan Law School.