A6 Murder DNA evidence

[Victor]

Hi Reg,

I had a further thought over lunch. Try defining the following terms as a percentage (or range of percentages):-

Impossible
Possible
Improbable
Probable

You'll find that they aren't exact opposites of eachother.

KR,
Vic.

[Victor]

You will have to explain the difference between the "possibility of contamination could not be ruled out" and "contamination could not be ruled out".

Hi Reg,

Reading the transcript again, I realised that judgment does rule out contamination, but they do not rule out the possibility that contamination could have happened. Potentially it could have occured, but it didn't.

A summary of what they say in totality is the possibility of contamination could not be ruled out, but the results show that no contamination occurred

KR,
Vic.

[reg1965]

Hi Vic

Hi Reg,

Reading the transcript again, I realised that judgment does rule out contamination, but they do not rule out the possibility that contamination could have happened. Potentially it could have occured, but it didn't.

A summary of what they say in totality is the possibility of contamination could not be ruled out, but the results show that no contamination occurred

KR,
Vic.

The judges may have ruled out the possibility of contamination but the respondents certainly did not.

Do I assume correctly that your summary of what they say is confined to the judges alone?

Regards
Reg

[Victor]

Hi Reg,

The judges may have ruled out the possibility of contamination but the respondents certainly did not.

The judges said they could not exclude the possibility of contamination, but the results rule out contamination having occurred.

Do I assume correctly that your summary of what they say is confined to the judges alone?

Nope, it's everyone except Dr Evison who remains unconvinced despite not being able to give a valid explanation the results obtained.

KR,
Vic.

[reg1965]

Hi Vic

I found this that be of interest to you from Dan Kranes statement to the
Hoey appeal (2006)

Given that LCN analyses can conceivably generate results from as little material as a single cell of an individual, the only way to be confident that results have not been obtained solely through contamination is to demonstrate conclusively with continuity records that contamination is not even remotely
possible.

(my enboldening)

found @ http://www.bioforensics.com/statemen..._statement.pdf

Regards
Reg

[reg1965]

Hi Vic

With regard to my above post, where in the appeal judgement is/are Dr Kranes conclusions adequately addressed. If you don't mind I would like full references to each and every one.

Regards
Reg

[Victor]

I found this that be of interest to you from Dan Kranes statement to the Hoey appeal (2006)

Given that LCN analyses can conceivably generate results from as little material as a single cell of an individual, the only way to be confident that results have not been obtained solely through contamination is to demonstrate conclusively with continuity records that contamination is not even remotely possible.

Hi Reg,

That statement discusses the statistical possibility of contamination, and as I keep saying, without seeing the exact results then it is not possible to rebut.

The extremely remote possibility discussed is where there would be a legit profile from the sample in which every single loci sufferes allelic drop-out, so that's 26 (assuming 13 loci evaluated) times that must occur, and then the contaminant DNA only is detected. From page 8 of your link then the odds of that happening are (0.2)^26 [for 10pg sample] = 1 in 1,490,116,119,384,760,000 and then using the 70% contamination figure you posted gives 1 in 2x10^18

Interesting that Kranes doesn't mention that!

KR,
Vic.

[reg1965]

Hi Vic

Hi Reg,

That statement discusses the statistical possibility of contamination, and as I keep saying, without seeing the exact results then it is not possible to rebut.

The extremely remote possibility discussed is where there would be a legit profile from the sample in which every single loci sufferes allelic drop-out, so that's 26 (assuming 13 loci evaluated) times that must occur, and then the contaminant DNA only is detected. From page 8 of your link then the odds of that happening are (0.2)^26 [for 10pg sample] = 1 in 1,490,116,119,384,760,000 and then using the 70% contamination figure you posted gives 1 in 2x10^18

Interesting that Kranes doesn't mention that!

KR,
Vic.

Krane does not mention any of the figures you have put together because yours are total nonsense. You are forgetting homozygous (same allele inherited from each parent) loci. Not all loci are heterozous (differing alleles from each parent). With phenotypes, loci with indistinguishable homozygous and heterozgous loci, such as cystic fibrosis, it is not always easy to determine the genotype. Therefore your calculations and findings are as useful as a chocolate fireguard.

Regards
Reg

[Victor]

Hi Reg,

Krane does not mention any of the figures you have put together because yours are total nonsense.

They are based on his figures! Therefore your statement above is calling his figures nonsense.

You are forgetting homozygous (same allele inherited from each parent) loci. Not all loci are heterozous (differing alleles from each parent). With phenotypes, loci with indistinguishable homozygous and heterozgous loci, such as cystic fibrosis, it is not always easy to determine the genotype. Therefore your calculations and findings are as useful as a chocolate fireguard.

No I am not, it's irrelevant. There will still be 2 copies of the same allele, and they will both need to drop out for the peak to disappear completely.

KR,
Vic.

[caz]

Hi Caz
My attitude was one of DNA should be correct and my expectation was that the DNA tests would show that no DNA from Hanratty would be found because I believed and still do that Hanratty had nothing to do with the A6 murder whatsoever.
As far as Alphon is concerned, he was at that time and still is alive. The DNA would have been put to him and he may or may not have confessed. It would then be up to the CPS to see if a convincing case could be brought before a jury.
For your further interest I was totally and utterly unaware of the existence of LCN DNA until what has happened in the last year. With the Templeton Woods case and especially Hoey (Omagh Bombing appeal), LCN has been shown to be riddled with crippling problems that make it pretty worthless as anything other than an itelligence tool. All but 2 other countries wouldn't touch LCN with a barge pole for lead evidence in criminal investigations.
Have you read any of the articles about LCN linked to on here? If not I would suggest having a look. Most are nicely layman targeted so should not pose any problems in understanding

Regards
Reg

Hi Reg,

Thanks for the honest reply.

Of course, your expectations, that no Hanratty DNA would be ‘found’, but that Alphon’s would be present, as large as life, and would have been ‘put to him’ as an invitation to confess, came to nothing in the event, and in fact the tests indicated the exact opposite.

So while I do understand your human response to reject this contrary result, using any and every possible means, the honest and purely scientific response to your claim that: ‘LCN has been shown to be riddled with crippling problems that make it pretty worthless as anything other than an itelligence tool’ must be that you would by now have been obliged to reject the result, even if it had matched your personal expectations.

The same objections would now apply, including the potential for contamination. But of course, Hanratty could not have left contaminating DNA on a sausage after 1962, unlike Alphon. And I have a shrewd idea how you would have responded to anyone now conjuring up improbable ways for the hanky and knickers to have become contaminated by an innocent Alphon’s DNA, and for a guilty Hanratty’s semen to have done the famous Houdini trick.

Do you not see that by your own argument, you would by now have been forced to reject the DNA results whatever they had indicated, and you would have been left in precisely the same position as you are today, with no justification for suggesting that Alphon deserves to be locked up and the key thrown away, or that Hanratty didn't deserve the blame.

Aren't you in direct conflict with your own principles about what makes for an 'unsafe' and therefore unjust verdict?

Love,

Caz
X

[reg1965]

Hi Caz
My attitude was one of DNA should be correct and my expectation was that the DNA tests would show that no DNA from Hanratty would be found because I believed and still do that Hanratty had nothing to do with the A6 murder whatsoever.
As far as Alphon is concerned, he was at that time and still is alive. The DNA would have been put to him and he may or may not have confessed. It would then be up to the CPS to see if a convincing case could be brought before a jury.
For your further interest I was totally and utterly unaware of the existence of LCN DNA until what has happened in the last year. With the Templeton Woods case and especially Hoey (Omagh Bombing appeal), LCN has been shown to be riddled with crippling problems that make it pretty worthless as anything other than an itelligence tool. All but 2 other countries wouldn't touch LCN with a barge pole for lead evidence in criminal investigations.
Have you read any of the articles about LCN linked to on here? If not I would suggest having a look. Most are nicely layman targeted so should not pose any problems in understanding

Regards
Reg

Hi Reg,

Thanks for the honest reply.

Of course, your expectations, that no Hanratty DNA would be ‘found’, but that Alphon’s would be present, as large as life, and would have been ‘put to him’ as an invitation to confess, came to nothing in the event, and in fact the tests indicated the exact opposite.

So while I do understand your human response to reject this contrary result, using any and every possible means, the honest and purely scientific response to your claim that: ‘LCN has been shown to be riddled with crippling problems that make it pretty worthless as anything other than an itelligence tool’ must be that you would by now have been obliged to reject the result, even if it had matched your personal expectations.

The same objections would now apply, including the potential for contamination. But of course, Hanratty could not have left contaminating DNA on a sausage after 1962, unlike Alphon. And I have a shrewd idea how you would have responded to anyone now conjuring up improbable ways for the hanky and knickers to have become contaminated by an innocent Alphon’s DNA, and for a guilty Hanratty’s semen to have done the famous Houdini trick.

Do you not see that by your own argument, you would by now have been forced to reject the DNA results whatever they had indicated, and you would have been left in precisely the same position as you are today, with no justification for suggesting that Alphon deserves to be locked up and the key thrown away, or that Hanratty didn't deserve the blame.

Aren't you in direct conflict with your own principles about what makes for an 'unsafe' and therefore unjust verdict?

Love,

Caz
X

Hi Caz

I have tried to follow your post but have given up. I have seen a lot of
goobbledegook written on these threads but yours takes the cake.

You do not make much sense at the best of times. Sorry but lifes too short to be worrying about nonsense like yours.

No hard feelings though
Regards
Reg

[caz]

Nice one, Reg.

So claiming to be ignorant to avoid addressing my point was your best policy was it?

I'll try to make my point a little clearer.

You are adamant that Hanratty was accused and found guilty of rape and murder without justification. You maintain that there is still a reasonable doubt that he committed these crimes.

So where is your own justification for accusing and finding Alphon guilty of rape and murder? What evidence have you used to banish all reasonable doubt from your own mind that he committed these crimes?

Are you not seeking to replace a perceived miscarriage of justice with one of your own, by fingering a man who is not, and has never been on trial?

Love,

Caz
X

[reg1965]

Hi Caz

Nice one, Reg.

Your points:-

1) Your verbal diarrhoea makes comprehension akin to wading through treacle.

2) Hanratty was only charged with murder, that of MG.

3) Why do you believe that the DNA evidence points so overwhelmingly to Hanratty's guilt?

4) Just because someone has never been on trial dosen't mean that they were not the perpetrators of a crime.

Reg

[Victor]

My attitude was one of DNA should be correct and my expectation was that the DNA tests would show that no DNA from Hanratty would be found because I believed and still do that Hanratty had nothing to do with the A6 murder whatsoever.

The above clearly demonstrates that Reg only doubts the LCN technique because it gave plausible results that contradicted his beliefs! And he concludes that his beliefs are infallible therefore the technique must be wrong.

And then we get the post above.

1. Unfounded abuse.
2. Pointless pedantry.
3. Distraction from the issue.
4. Restating the obvious.

I'm surprised you didn't mention that Caz was mistaken when she said "Are you not seeking to replace a perceived miscarriage of justice with one of your own, by fingering a man who is not, and has never been on trial?" because Alphon was charged with several offenses so he has been on trial, just not for murdering Gregsten.

KR,
Vic.

[reg1965]

I'm surprised you didn't mention that Caz was mistaken when she said "Are you not seeking to replace a perceived miscarriage of justice with one of your own, by fingering a man who is not, and has never been on trial?" because Alphon was charged with several offenses so he has been on trial, just not for murdering Gregsten.

I didn't mention Alphon at all, Caz did. Take it up with her!