From

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/allnews/content_objectid=13814385_method=full_sitei
d=50143_headline=-RAPE-CASE-JURY-PICKED-name_page.html
or
http://tinyurl.com/22sdr

"Judge Mr Justice Owen told the group any of them involved
in a mass DNA screening by police in the previous
two-and-a-half years could not sit on the jury. "

Is this because the prosecution want to not
reveal the mechanism. ?
Only 3,000 swabs were taken from people in a
catchment area otherwise at least 4 counties,
let alone Birmingham,
not the usual area of a city or a village only.
It was never revealed, the pre-selection
criterion for only 3,000.

This is my usenet post of  23 Oct 2002

http://groups.google.co.uk/groups?selm=1622f08.0210230932.46f1be17%40posting.goo
gle.com&output=gplain
"The only information (as released to the media) the police have sofar
is he is white ,
aged 30 to 50 and may live in London, Surrey, Kent or Berkshire.
But they do have the suspect's DNA profile.
So how come they are only swabbing 3000 targets to find a match.
Buried in these DNA profiles is an indication of the person's
ethnic background. I know from my own DNA profile just
concerning the alleles (numbers) on just 2 of the 10 loci (markers)
ie D18S51 and D16S51 I or anyone else would know I was 20
times more likely to be white than black (true). With the computer
and data systems available to the police I am sure there
are combinations that would similarly give a greater likelihood
of being say Greek or Polish or Zambian origin or whatever. From that
construct a list of surnames of that origin. Especially if this
rapist's profile has thrown up a rare locus/allele combination. "

As it transpired the relevant ancestry seems to have been
Polish, I know he is
of German origin, but the surname and first name ,hence
police interest, is Polish .
[  I would posit that the DNA profile of the rapist
contained at least one D8S1179  allele 16 and D2S1338  allele 17,
maybe others less marked differentially but cumulatively
more common in Poland than general UK population. ]
It is a lot easier to find a matches if
preselected from 20 numbers in a DNA profile
down to 16 say and at the same time exclude > 99 per
cent of the UK community of non-Polish background.
It doesn't exclude anyone in the rest of the UK
being the offender, it doesn't even require that  
person to have Polish ancestry generations before.
It is just a statistical bias, not guaranteed
by any means. They may have done a (Jeffrey) Gafoor
trawl via existing data on the UK NDNAD, equally
contentious, as far as possibility of arriving
at a false match.

Then amazingly they are allowed 19 point matches /
one point mismatch as evidence of guilt rather than
exculpatory evidence. One point mismatch in 20
is a mismatch - proof of innocence - unless bioological
evidence to show differential mutation in the accused.
See prosecution of a Colin
Waite in Birmingham recently (defense was unaware ).
To do this they rely
on spontaneous mutation / heterogeneity / somatic
mosaicism without even exploring whether the
individual in question displays any such tissue mutation.
This phenomenon is related to the situation where someone
can have 2 different couloured eyes. In these sorts of
cases conjecturing a difference between buccal (cheek-cells )
and sperm cell-line, and no DNA profiling expert
to point out the error for the defense.
Mutation possible, yes , but rare even for the
loci used in DNA profiling which are chosen precisely
because they have a large amount of variation (due to
the more numerous mutations over time ).

Interesting to see if the prosecution does not
divulge the trawl background and whether the defence
picks up on the pre-selection/
false matching effect .
Perhaps they have matching cell-phone cell idents
coincident with some of the rape locations or
other strong corroboration. DNA profile
'match' on its own is just not sufficient with
this sort of trawling.

[ Any of the jury pool involved with the trawl
would be aware of pre-selection by Polish name ]

What they aren't telling you about DNA profiles
and what Special Branch and Parliament don't want
you to know.
http://www.nutteing2.freeservers.com/dnapr.htm
or nutteingd in a search engine

e mail nutteing2@quickfindit.....com (just one dot)

--