A6 Rebooted

[Limehouse]

Originally Posted by RonIpstone

Hello Tony,

I must make it clear that I do not believe all people from Bedfordshire to be dimwits, only a high proportion and this was reflected in the intellectual composition of the jury.

Ron

I assume you carried out relevant tests to determine the intellectual composition of the jury? You were quite critical of people you think are not qualified to comment on the scientific aspects of this case so could we know how you know so much about the intellectual capabilities of a jury that sat in a courtroom almost 50 years ago?

[Limehouse]

Derrick wrote:

The actual results are unknown to anyone here so Victor must support his opinion with solid evidence as source tissue is unknowable from DNA testing.

Vic wrote:

Paragraph 120 from the judgment:
Dr Evison [the Defence expert] seems to accept that in the case of the knicker fragment the contaminant would have to be semen.

Whether he was the defence expert or not - how could he 'seem to accept' something that is not actually able to be established according to current scientific knowledge?

Was that line actually in the judgement and if so is Dr Evison being misunderstood or misquoted? Surely a scientist would not 'seem to accept' something?

[Victor]

Originally Posted by Limehouse

how could he 'seem to accept' something that is not actually able to be established according to current scientific knowledge?

Hi Julie,

You are wrong. It is possible to discriminate sperm heads from other DNA sources.

Secondly, presumably he refused to state he accepts the proposition - otherwise he'd be fired just like Lincoln was, so much for an unbiased defence - but he could not honestly and legitimately deny it.

Was that line actually in the judgement and if so is Dr Evison being misunderstood or misquoted? Surely a scientist would not 'seem to accept' something?

Yes the line was in paragraph 120 of the judgment, and I gave the link to it too so you could see for yourself. Here it is again -> http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2002/1141.html

I don't think he was either misunderstood nor misquoted - the judgment is the 3 judges opinion of what he said, so the above is a plausible explanation but not the only possibility.

KR,
Vic.

[Victor]

Originally Posted by Limehouse

Whether he [Dr Evison] was the defence expert or not - how could he 'seem to accept' something that is not actually able to be established according to current scientific knowledge?

Hi Julie,

The proof that sperm can be detected seperately from other sources of DNA is most of the way down this article -> http://www.scientific.org/tutorials/...ley/riley.html

KR,
Vic.

[babybird67]

that is really what clinches the DNA for me...

1/ that it was found in a distribution typical of intercourse having taken place;

and

2/ that not only would contamination have had to occur, for which there is absolutely no evidence, but that an equally if not more improbable act of total eradication of the 'real' rapist's DNA would also have had to occur.

As someone much more au fait with the science than me, can you tell me if this is impossible according to the laws of physics or just extremely, exceptionally, completely unlikely.

[Derrick]

Originally Posted by Victor

Hi Julie,

The proof that sperm can be detected seperately from other sources of DNA is most of the way down this article -> http://www.scientific.org/tutorials/...ley/riley.html

KR,
Vic.

Hi Vic

From the section you mentioned in the article you linked to above is the following;

The description of this procedure so far is quite ideal. It works pretty much as described for fresh samples. Even with fresh samples however, some of the non-sperm DNA will be trapped in the sperm pellet. This can be a major problem if the amount of sperm is very low or if the samples are aged and degraded. Often male cells, most likely immature sperm or white cells may end up in the supernatant, variously called the “female” fraction or “non-sperm” fraction.

That is why Budowle, Krane et al keep banging on about the inability to infer the tissue source of DNA when using LCN type techniques.

Derrick

[Victor]

Originally Posted by Derrick

That is why Budowle, Krane et al keep banging on about the inability to infer the tissue source of DNA when using LCN type techniques.

Hi Derrick,

From paragraph 56 of http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2009/2698.html :-
Some stains of biological fluids are detectable by visual examination or presumptive tests (blood, semen or saliva), but some are not – sweat, skin cells or vaginal secretions. It is relatively straight forward to determine the precise nature of the material if it is particulate or if it is a stain of a biological material that can be detected by visual examination or by a presumptive test.

KR,
Vic.

[Limehouse]

Originally Posted by Victor

Hi Julie,

The proof that sperm can be detected seperately from other sources of DNA is most of the way down this article -> http://www.scientific.org/tutorials/...ley/riley.html

KR,
Vic.

Thank you Vic - but the article does very little to convince me that the method of testing on the Hanratty/Storie items was reliable. In fact - the article does much to describe how many problems can be caused by testing degraded or particularly small amounts of DNA.

[caz]

Hi Limehouse,

But I imagine the problems that can be caused would relate more to results that are clearly ambiguous, or less than conclusive, or difficult to interpret with total accuracy, or where the rest of the case evidence, or the original conviction, points in another direction.

When they looked at those results in the context of the rape victim's testimony and stated certainty, when confronted with the man who couldn't prove he was elsewhere and went on to be convicted, there was little to be called into question. It all fitted. Had anything not fitted, Hanratty might still not have been proved innocent, but we can be sure the appeal would have had a very different ending.

Love,

Caz
X

[Limehouse]

Originally Posted by caz

Hi Limehouse,

But I imagine the problems that can be caused would relate more to results that are clearly ambiguous, or less than conclusive, or difficult to interpret with total accuracy, or where the rest of the case evidence, or the original conviction, points in another direction.

When they looked at those results in the context of the rape victim's testimony and stated certainty, when confronted with the man who couldn't prove he was elsewhere and went on to be convicted, there was little to be called into question. It all fitted. Had anything not fitted, Hanratty might still not have been proved innocent, but we can be sure the appeal would have had a very different ending.

Love,

Caz
X

Hi Caz - nice to see you back posting.

Good points. For me - the DNA evidence is troublesome scientifically because we cannjot know how much handling the garments were subjected to before they were stored away and we do not know how much contact they had with each other. Additionally - the amount of deposit the scientists were able to extract was very minimal and the quality was poor. That meant that LCN testing had to be carried out and it is far less realiable than other more straightforward methods.

It is true that DNA is always considered in context with other evidence. That's a problem for me too. It is the quality of the other evidence that worried me to start with. Valerie's testimony is very important and I would not question it so easily if I could be sure that Acott was not leading her strongly. But there are many other aspects to the evidence that do bother me and I am always going to have grave doubts about Hanratty's guilt.