Bible John: A New Suspect by Jill Bavin-Mizzi

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hello Darryl,

I am going off tack a bit but its interesting that you mention that the McInnes family had a family pathologist. Surely a waste of money if McInnes was not BJ as they insisted. Its a defensive move. Some will not see it as that but there are no reasons that neutral scientists would doctor the evidence. Anyway a firm positive resulted can not be manufactured. Seems to me there are three outcomes in truth, Positive enough to say it was him, Completely negative and unable to be him and inconclusive.

Of course if there is doubt in the result then 'inconclusive' does not prove guilt and therefore any suspect remains innocent.

I am assuming a pathologist was employed by the family to challenge or defend any accusations. It could be suggested by some that this would indicate that there was uncertainty within the family at the time of the exhumation as to whether McInnes was responsible. Otherwise why would you prepare for a defence at I would imagine at some expense.

NW

I’m unsure about the term ‘family pathologist’ NW but I know that at the exhumation two pathologists were involved. Mary Cassidy on behalf of The Crown and Tony Bassutil on behalf of the McInnes’s family.

[cobalt]

When DNA first emerged as a forensic tool it was dubbed 'the genetic fingerprint.' This had the (intended ) effect of convincing the general public of its scientific certainty. Juries remain convinced to this day.

But the reality is slightly different. Both fingerprint and DNA evidence has to be collected without contamination. Even when this is done it is quite likely there will be a smudged partial print or in the case of DNA a mixture with other persons. Finally, the forensic evidence has to be matched by persons expert in the field.

Most of us on this site will be aware of cases where the forensic evidence has been faulty for one of the above reasons. The Shirley McKie case in Scotland in the late 1990s was never fully investigated since it undermined the entire credibility of the fingerprint experts employed by the crown. I recall a rapist convicted by DNA who claimed, correctly as it turned out, that he had never visited the Midlands area where the crime took place. From memory, this was put down to a contamination error inside the laboratory, or perhaps his factory work left his DNA profile on objects sold across the country. Neither fingerprints nor DNA are scientifically infallible.

[New Waterloo]

Herlocks good inclusion of the Heralds report on the bite/teeth examination is in my opinion a bomb shell. Something is very wrong with all of this. How could there be a report about Mcinnes teeth not matching the bite mark when he had false teeth. Either he didnt have false teeth or he did. If the body that was exhumed had no false teeth and we are certain McInnes had false teeth then we have a fabricated story in the Herald or they dug up the wrong body!!
something is just not right here. just so much confusion.
i am back listening to the Podcast again very carefully.



NW

[cobalt]

It's possible that McInnes did not have false teeth in 1969 when he was around 30 years of age but had acquired them by the time of his death aged 41. As I pointed out earlier, we Scots generally do not have good teeth

[New Waterloo]

Hi Cobalt. Yes I see what you mean but the comments and conclusions drawn after the exhumation do not appear to state that the body examined had false teeth. As Herlock points out the Crown uses the non matching of teeth marks as one factor eliminating McInnes as the killer. This appears to be being used as a factor for all to believe and adding weight to McInnes innocence when it should be mentioned. If it is not mentioned in official reports by the pathologists it is a huge mistake or a sham. It cannot be an error. It is so important that the Crown are using the findings about the bite marks to form their conclusion and then not say they were false. More than odd. Seems ridiculous to me and its been believed by the press and all.

NW

[Darryl Kenyon]

I have to ask the question if the bite marks were compared to McInnes teeth why were the said teeth not used instead of the femur for DNA comparison. Especially since the results from the femur took months to evaluate and may have been inconclusive.
Teeth are one of the preferred options to extract DNA from, as shown in the Hanratty case which gave up results conclusively , one in a million and a half chance and [ I believe ] pretty quickly .

From the net - Case-by-Case Evaluation:
The best tooth for DNA extraction should be determined based on the specific circumstances of the exhumation and the condition of the teeth.

And -

• Presence of Fillings or Dental Work:
  Fillings can impact DNA quality and quantity, so teeth with extensive work might be avoided in favor of those with less interference.

Finally -

• Alternative DNA Sources:
  If teeth are not suitable, bone fragments can be an alternative source of DNA.

Seems to me McInnes's teeth were either too degraded or extensive work [ maybe dentures ].

And an oral pathologist can not make a judgement on either circumstance with any level of certainty given either condition .

Regards Darryl