You firstly make some random comment about frequency of a single allele to prove something and now you move the goalpost?

Did you even bother to read the discussion of the paper you just linked?

Shall we read it together,

A check of matching and partial matching among profiles in a database provides a useful diagnostic test. There were several instances of nine-locus matching profiles found initially in the combined Australian data. Subsequent investigation revealed that in each case the profiles were either from identical twins or from the same person typed by different agencies. There is no published explanation for the two pairs of matching profiles in the FBI Bahamian data (3). As offender databases grow, Table 3 illustrates that high degrees of matching are to be expected. It is very likely, for example, that there are already 9-locus matches within combined U.S. offender databases. The extent to which matching probabilities depend on the population structure parameter θ, as shown in all the numerical results in this note, points to the need for caution in basing “source attribution” arguments on the assumption of profile independence between individuals (i.e., assuming that θ is zero). It should be stressed that the theory and results presented here are for averages over all possible profiles.

The probabilities P0(θ), P1(θ), P2(θ) do not refer to one specific profile.

Matching of a suspect to a particular crime scene profile can constitute very strong evidence in favor of the hypothesis that the suspect is the source of the scene material.

Reminds me a little bit of this little thing you learn in statistics

http://i.stack.imgur.com/QZsY3.png

It is simple math.where a is the probability a single allele is shared and there are 16 alleles, so chance=a1a2a3*a4 and so on.

There are not 16 alleles, where do you get that from? There are 16 markers the numbers related those markers are the alleles. Of the 16 markers 15 are used for the statistic. You do not even know the difference between an allele and a marker/locus but you are questioning the result?

Also, if the person is heterozygous for that marker vs. homozygous you do the product differently (has to do with actual biology underlying it which again if you actually bothered to investigate thoroughly you would find out).

The fact that you still did not look up how it is calculated even after I tell you what to look for ("Hardy-Weinberg") means that you are just interested in a monologue. So I am sure if I do not participate it would not make much of a difference.

Also, I am not sure what are you trying to prove here? You completely missed my whole comment obviously because I clearly state also

These are extrapolations on the population statistic on relatively small samplings. There are simple ways to check how off you expect to be.

meaning they are off and you can actually quantify it to some extent. So please continue your monologue by sending the next paragraph to someone else's inbox.