[joh6nn]

Ok, but probability doesn't work like that. Even if 99.99% of the time a given individual is delusional, you still have to check every time because this person might be the 0.01%. It's like the question of "you flip a coin 9 times in a row, and it has come up heads all 9 times. If you flip the coin a 10th time, how likely is it to be heads?"

Also, and perhaps even more importantly, if you aren't actually checking every time, then you don't actually know what the statistics for delusional vs not are, you're just guessing.

[seanmcdirmid]

Your resources are limited, DNA tests aren’t free and doing the footwork takes labor. The claim is evaluated, triaged, and then prioritized.

If we put more resources into the system, throwing caution to the wind is much more likely.

[joh6nn]

I'm not sure what you mean about throwing more resources into the system, but as regards the DNA evidence, in this specific circumstances just asking the fraud "What's your Dad's name?" was sufficient. No expensive DNA test needed

[Cacti]

they’re police officers trying to do their best with limited time, not mathematicians trying to prove a point

[joh6nn]

I am also not a mathematician, and indeed got fairly mediocre math grades throughout most of my education. But you don't need to be PhD candidate to understand that if you never actually check, you never actually know.

[lazide]

As we all recently discovered - not testing means the thing isn’t happening (obviously), which is convenient if you don’t want to know.

Some people go looking for problems, and they find them. Some people don’t, and they don’t. Some people are so uninterested in finding problems that they’ll attack or ‘fix’ people that find them.

[octodog]

How on earth could you know that? That's a strong assumption to make.