A6 Murder DNA evidence

[JamesDean]

I'm a graduate chemist and capable of understanding the science, and have made my own mind up, instead of dogmatically clinging to the now unsupportable position of JH's innocence.

Why is Reg's opinion dogmatic and yours not?

I'm a graduate chemist and capable of understanding the science, and have made my own mind up, instead of dogmatically clinging to the now unsupportable position of JH's innocence. I can validly argue the case against contamination, and for the LCN technique because I understand it.

The implication being that we are not capable of understanding the science and therefore we cannot validly argue the case for contamination or against the LCN technique. So it's only your opinion that counts eh?

I don't care whether you believe what myself and others say about the evidence or not, in fact I'd prefer it if you'd go through the evidence, absorb it and make your own mind up.

Erm ... isn't that what we are doing? Your objection is that 'our' opinion is not the same as yours!

[Victor]

Why is Reg's opinion dogmatic and yours not?

That'd be jimarilyn not Reg, but because I've read the evidence and I have changed my opinion, therefore by definition it isn't dogmatic.

The implication being that we are not capable of understanding the science and therefore we cannot validly argue the case for contamination or against the LCN technique. So it's only your opinion that counts eh?

Utter rubbish! Of course you can make any points you like - and you in particular have done - but silly comments to the effect of "scientists (and police) are all dodgy" are ridiculous. As long as the points are valid then people can respond, if they're dogmatic rubbish it's pointless. And don't forget that both the CPS and defence team had expert scientific input to the judgement.

Erm ... isn't that what we are doing? Your objection is that 'our' opinion is not the same as yours!

Nope, people seem to have caught Paul Foot's disease - the Rhyl evidence is right so the DNA must be wrong. Try reading it with an open mind - I did and despite believing Hanratty to be innocent for many years, I've now come to the conclusion that his guilt has been established "beyond reasonable doubt".

[JamesDean]

Hi Reg,

Do you believe forensic evidence proved Stefan Kiszco innocent and that DNA evidence identified the real culprit?

Do you believe that anyone has been rightfully convicted as a direct result of forensic evidence? Or do you believe that all defendants should be given the benefit of the doubt and presumed innocent if a guilty verdict hinges on the forensics? Just trying to see where your logic leads you if it's just a case of not being able to trust science to get anything right.

By the way, I had no idea whether or not Hanratty was guilty until recently. I was eight when he was convicted, and my earliest memories were of my dad getting cross with the "lefties" who were suggesting "the murdering swine" was innocent. My reaction to dad's attitude was always to rebel against it. When he was called for jury service I joked that he might as well just post a 'Guilty!' note to the judge and have done with it. He tended to the view that innocent men don't find themselves in the dock.

As I learned more about cases of injustice I appreciated just how wrong dad was not to judge each case on its merits or otherwise, but to stick with his belief that the police and the courts could never do any wrong, and that "lefties" were always on the side of the criminal. When I learned more about the A6 murder case, and how Paul Foot was convinced that there had been a miscarriage of justice, I thought it would only be a matter of time before Hanratty's total innocence would be proven, or at the very least that his conviction would be declared unsafe.

Up until very recently I believed, like you, that the DNA evidence would no doubt turn out to have holes in it that you could drive a 36A bus through. But that was before I read (and I mean really read) all the details kindly supplied by our fellow posters. And try as I might I cannot see how any combination of framing or incompetence, concerning the acquisition, disposal, retention and contamination of evidence, could reasonably explain, or could reasonably have produced such a result.

That is where I stand right now, but unlike my dad I never say never. So if you or anyone else can come up with something better than "the science is always going to be inherently unreliable" I will be only too willing to listen and reconsider. That's why I'm still here. Thanks to daddy I have an inherent dislike of injustice and look for every loophole before feeling certain that justice has been done. If dad were here now, still proclaiming Hanratty's guilt, it would mean precious little. But when I reached the point of thinking he was indeed guilty beyond reasonable doubt, you can bet I didn't do so lightly.

Love,

Caz
X

Hi Caz,

I think that perhaps you are labouring under the misconception that Reg (and I, as I share some of his views) think that LCN is worthless as an evidential tool and that it always gives false or spurious results. Speaking solely for myself I can say that I believe that LCN does have a valid place in the legal system and is capable of providing corroborative evidence. However, it is not perfect at this point in time and in 1997 was probably considerably less perfect than it is today.

The arguments put forward against the infallibility of the DNA tests in the Hanratty case are to some extent based upon doubt about the technique employed at the time and the cradle to grave lifecycle of the 'fragment' which to all intents and purposes is unknown. We don't know how the knickers and other items of clothing in the case were handled, either in storage or during examination prior to the trial, so it is impossible to categorically state that no contamination can have taken place. Victor always refers to the lack of a liquid stain in the package containg the fragment when it was re-discovered in 1991. The broken vial theory is only one of many ways that the fragment could have been contaminated. It could have been contaminated by the process of testing in the lab. Was any one of us there to scrutinise the procedures and to verify that there could have been no mixup occurring in the lab? No, we rely on that by blind faith. You will no doubt say that this is not even a remote possibility, that nothing could have gone wrong in the lab. If that is your opinion then I would ask you to explain why you have that opinion? There are no accepted standards even today for LCN testing let alone 1997. The technique was 'work in progress' back in those days.

Now you will say I'm biased against LCN and what I'm really saying that is that no process is foolproof, particularly when that process is still under development and is using materials of dubious quality. Can you guarantee the results in 1997 were correct? Can you guarantee that no mixup occurred in the lab? Can you guarantee that any DNA deposit on the fragment from JH was not a result of contamination prior to the trial or during the testing process in the lab? Can you guarantee that the fragment ever had the DNA of the rapist on it?

And what do you infer from this statement in the judgment to which you and others repeatedly refer:

With regard to the knicker fragment we have what Dr Whitaker would describe as a typical distribution of male and female DNA following an act of sexual intercourse leading to the obvious inference that the male contribution came from James Hanratty.

This statement has achieved 'God like' status to those who proclaim that the judgment is as infallible as the DNA, which in truth it is! Tell me how you interpret that sentence please! It's important because I believe it is misleading.

To have doubt or reservation about the Hanratty DNA evidence is not a heretical claim that DNA is worthless or that LCN is incapable of producing corroborative evidence. We are not questioning the value of DNA evidence per se but questioning the value of DNA evidence in less than ideal conditions and using a technique in it's infancy that has yet to gain international acceptance. To me there is a little red flag waving and I am cautious of simply accepting the judgment because it may have 'seemed' to have been the correct conclusion at the time it was written. Questions have to be asked! Many of those questions cannot ever be answered so in my mind there is an element of doubt.

The jury back in 1962, after deliberating for many hours, asked Justice Gorman for guidance on the meaning of 'reasonable doubt'. He answered that if there was 'any' doubt then there was reasonable doubt. That the jury even asked the question suggests to me that there was indeed reasonable doubt. I believe there is reasonable doubt about the Hanratty DNA test result and, therefore, the conclusion reached in the judgment.

That Hanratty was not acquitted may well have been the result of some brow beating in the jury room. 'A' type personalities can overwhelm those who are not so forthright in their views. There are one or two 'A' type personalities here on the forum. That's not a bad thing but it doesn't make them right and everyone else wrong because they have overwhelmingly strong views.

Sometimes we disagree because we simply don't understand what the other person is saying. Sometimes it's because we have entrenched views and nobody is going to change our mind. That's life!

Love
James
x

[JamesDean]

I've read the evidence and I have changed my opinion, therefore by definition it isn't dogmatic.

You have simply jumped from one side of the fence to the other. That you claim to have changed your mind is a persuasive tool you use to show how reasonable your own opinions are.

Utter rubbish! Of course you can make any points you like - and you in particular have done - but silly comments to the effect of "scientists (and police) are all dodgy" are ridiculous.

When did I post that?

Nope, people seem to have caught Paul Foot's disease - the Rhyl evidence is right so the DNA must be wrong. Try reading it with an open mind - I did and despite believing Hanratty to be innocent for many years, I've now come to the conclusion that his guilt has been established "beyond reasonable doubt".

I haven't read any of the books so my mind is untainted. I make my own mind up. You have made your own mind up but you seem to be under the impression that your opinion carries more weight than anyone elses and so, to quote a johnl-ism, 'the DNA evidence has been put to bed'. It hasn't!

[Victor]

You have simply jumped from one side of the fence to the other. That you claim to have changed your mind is a persuasive tool you use to show how reasonable your own opinions are.

Erm... is there a point to that? Oh yes, to call me a liar - great that's nice and productive.

When did I post that?

It isn't a quote see I said "comments to the effect of" like:-
"Was any one of us there to scrutinise the procedures and to verify that there could have been no mixup occurring in the lab? "
"Can you guarantee that no mixup occurred in the lab?"

Conspiracy theories - of course noone can guarantee that the DNA test procedures were flawless, or that Elvis is dead, or the moon-landings weren't faked.

You have offered some genuine possibilities for where contamination may have occurred on the other thread, so I looked into them and replied, but apparently my replies were twisting your words, or just direct quotes from the judgement and you gave up.

I haven't read any of the books so my mind is untainted. I make my own mind up. You have made your own mind up but you seem to be under the impression that your opinion carries more weight than anyone elses and so, to quote a johnl-ism, 'the DNA evidence has been put to bed'. It hasn't!

My opinions carry no more or less weight than anyone elses, and I'm prepared to continue defending them. It's you that gave in remember!

[caz]

Hi Reg,

I am very relieved to learn that you are prepared to judge each case on its own merits and therefore are not one of those who subscribe to the view that all DNA analysis is ‘inherently flawed’ and should not therefore be admissible as evidence, which I’m sure would delight every offender past, present and future. But as I said before it would have the opposite effect on any poor sod who was wrongly convicted in the past, if DNA evidence that indicated his innocence had to be similarly ruled inadmissible.

I’m particularly glad that you consider DNA to be ‘the most scientifically sound forensic evidence that could be put before a jury’ and that many people have been ‘correctly convicted with the aid of this science’. It makes a refreshing change to the impression given by other posters that DNA evidence is not worth tuppence. I am still wondering whether they would be saying that if Alphon’s DNA had been detected on those knickers instead of Hanratty’s.

Could I ask what you have seen regarding the DNA evidence in this case that ‘doesn't make sense’ to you? You point to Dr Whitaker’s involvement as your ‘very good reason for doubt’ over the Hanratty DNA. Not feeling able to trust an individual’s work is all very well, but how does that translate into the evidence itself not making sense? I totally agree about Meadows and how disastrous it was that people just presumed he knew what he was talking about and could be relied upon to apply and interpret cot death statistics correctly.

But I’m struggling to see what ‘just does not add up’ about Hanratty’s DNA being detected on a piece of crime scene evidence and no trace of any other potential suspect. If no reasonable alternative interpretation can be put on this result by anyone else involved - including Hanratty’s own legal team - how does Whitaker’s involvement affect this state of affairs, regardless of how questionable you find his work generally?

What is the link between your doubts about this man’s expertise and the evidence not making sense to you? There is a world of difference between the original efforts to identify the gunman being shaky, contradictory or generally unsatisfying, and the wrong man being convicted. The right man can be found guilty for the wrong reasons, insufficient reason or even faulty evidence. But what you seem to be saying is that the non-forensic evidence indicates that they got the wrong man, therefore it doesn’t ‘add up’ unless the DNA evidence was wrong too. Enter Whitaker, who takes on the crucial role of providing you with the necessary doubt to satisfy your equation.

But all the doubts in the world still wouldn’t show that Hanratty was innocent. The rapist’s traces need never have been on that knicker fragment and Hanratty could still have been guilty. Only if the rapist’s DNA was present and was misidentified as Hanratty’s (and the mistake not picked up by his legal team) would it ‘add up’ to another man’s guilt.

So is there any evidence that for you personally rules out Hanratty from being the gunman? If so, what is it and what makes it sounder than the DNA evidence? If not, then it’s only your refusal to allow for the possibility of the DNA evidence being sound that doesn’t really add up from where I’m sitting. It still appears to boil down to wanting the original conviction to be declared unsafe on the basis that DNA evidence is inherently unsafe.

I looked up the John Taft case briefly. But I’m not sure the comparison helps your case, since it is obvious that if his semen could have got onto the victim’s clothing as a result of an earlier act of consensual sex (which was how Taft himself explained its presence) then the doubts are not about the soundness of the technique that identified his DNA, but how this evidence was interpreted in order to secure a conviction. Since there is no room for doubt that the man whose semen was found on VS’s knickers had raped and shot her after murdering MG, the DNA identification (assuming it was as sound as it was in the Taft case) was only open to the one interpretation.

Love,

Caz
X

[Victor]

Smack on Caz. An excellent post, you've hit the nail firmly on the head. Methinks someone was trying to bring to an end further open discussion on the A6 murder. A lot of people (both for and against Hanratty) are simply bored and switched off by the way individual (and slanted) interpretation of an official "report" (re. DNA evidence) has been allowed to take over an intriguing and fascinating case.

[reg1965]

Hi Caz
I have posted all my doubts previously in one way or another before but for your benefit I will summarize.

1) The possibility of contamination of the evidence during the original forensic investigations is very real. Mr Howard stated that strict guidelines where always followed when handling evidence but those guidelines would surely be in no way sufficient to protect against any form of DNA transfer. Even today no conclusive studies have been carried out as to the extent that tansfer of DNA can persist even though we know it happens every second of every day to most people, about 10% of the population is said to shed much less DNA than the rest. The respondents agreed that contamination could have taken place among the various exhibits.

2) When the original DNA tests where conducted in 1995 they proved inconclusive. This is notable considering the alleged large amount of bodily fluid on the fragment. DNA testing at that time would need a stain about the size of a 50 pence piece to obtain a profile.

3) Using LCN in 2000 Dr Whitaker found a match to JH that he alleges was as certain as makes no difference. He went on to state that the distribution of DNA was indicative of heterosexual intercourse The statement by Whitaker is, I believe, misleading. The reason for that is that all DNA tests involve mixtures of DNA from the evidence. How could he tell anything about typical distributions from an action and the timeframes involved. All he would be able to tell was if someones DNA was not present and after having taking into consideration the distinct possibility of allelic drop-in due to contamination.

4) As I stated previosly I was shocked by the DNA findings, but remained sceptical, as any decent scientist should.

5) Recently the LCN technique has been shown to be an invalid technique. No consensus exists as to the results obtained from one laboratory to the next with regard to replicate samples. Whitaker parades this technique as something it is not and in, as some people have described, a very arrogant and patronising fashion.

6) As to the matter of JH's legal team, they raised their concerns of contamination. The degree of the voracity of this is not apparent from the ruling document. One would have to have access to the transcript of the 10 day long appeal itself.

7) See my post #2063 on the main thread about my doubts.


Where did I say that the John Taft case had any bearing on the Hanratty case. I just think that it is another interesting case involving DNA with a different twist. I think you got a bit carried away there.

Regards
Reg

[jimarilyn]

So are you going to respond?

JESUS wept.

[Victor]

Hi Caz
I have posted all my doubts previously in one way or another before but for your benefit I will summarize.

1) The possibility of contamination of the evidence during the original forensic investigations is very real. Mr Howard stated that strict guidelines where always followed when handling evidence but those guidelines would surely be in no way sufficient to protect against any form of DNA transfer. Even today no conclusive studies have been carried out as to the extent that tansfer of DNA can persist even though we know it happens every second of every day to most people, about 10% of the population is said to shed much less DNA than the rest. The respondents agreed that contamination could have taken place among the various exhibits.

Your DNA is in every cell in your body, how much you "shed" depends upon masses of factors such as how often you shower, how moisturised your skin is naturally, whether you moisturise, etc. and of course whether you exfoliate. The same person doesn't "shed" the same amount constantly, they vary second by second.

2) When the original DNA tests where conducted in 1995 they proved inconclusive. This is notable considering the alleged large amount of bodily fluid on the fragment. DNA testing at that time would need a stain about the size of a 50 pence piece to obtain a profile.

There was not enough material to provide a positive match.

3) Using LCN in 2000 Dr Whitaker found a match to JH that he alleges was as certain as makes no difference. He went on to state that the distribution of DNA was indicative of heterosexual intercourse The statement by Whitaker is, I believe, misleading. The reason for that is that all DNA tests involve mixtures of DNA from the evidence. How could he tell anything about typical distributions from an action and the timeframes involved. All he would be able to tell was if someones DNA was not present and after having taking into consideration the distinct possibility of allelic drop-in due to contamination.

Sorry Reg, they found 3 profiles - JH, MG and VS - but no unidentified profile from "the rapist" which makes the possibility of contamination implausible.

4) As I stated previosly I was shocked by the DNA findings, but remained sceptical, as any decent scientist should.

Hmm... not so sure. True a "decent scientist" would want independant verification if at all possible, but where that isn't possible they'd form the best opinion from the evidence available - and of course the LCN process is done twice, so there is verification it's just not independant.

5) Recently the LCN technique has been shown to be an invalid technique. No consensus exists as to the results obtained from one laboratory to the next with regard to replicate samples. Whitaker parades this technique as something it is not and in, as some people have described, a very arrogant and patronising fashion.

Sorry Reg, that's just not true. In Jan 2008 after a review by the CPS LCN was permitted as evidence in the UK, and is also admissible in Netherlands and New Zealand.

The technique is a modificfation of the accepted process for DNA testing but is done over 34 cycles compared to 28 for the standardised DNA technique (known as SGM Plus).

I can't comment on the behaviour of Dr Whitaker, but the impression I have of him is along the same lines as yourself. Of course there's no connection between the validity of his work and his personal traits.

6) As to the matter of JH's legal team, they raised their concerns of contamination. The degree of the voracity of this is not apparent from the ruling document. One would have to have access to the transcript of the 10 day long appeal itself.

There is evidence that the defence team made an argument to the Appeal Court, and it's also true that we do not know "the degree of the voracity" of them or the prosecution team. This seems like a delaying argument.

7) See my post #2063 on the main thread about my doubts.

Where did I say that the John Taft case had any bearing on the Hanratty case. I just think that it is another interesting case involving DNA with a different twist. I think you got a bit carried away there.

Regards
Reg

[Victor]

JESUS wept.

Ah I get it, you can't respond in a reasonable, constructive way so just post nonsensical critical gibberish.

[caz]

Hi Reg,

Many thanks for your summary. I see that Victor has beaten me to it and responded far more competently than I could. But since I have prepared a response I will post it anyway, for what it's worth:

1) Agreed in principle, but you still need to show how the specific results could reasonably have been obtained (ie Hanratty's DNA match and no trace of any other potential suspect) through contamination of the evidence.

2) Irrelevant. Science is always going to be a work in progress. Not being able to produce conclusive results in 1995 doesn't affect what has become achievable since.

3) How do you know that the technology, expertise and experience wasn't in place by 2000 for Dr Whitaker to find the DNA match to JH and state that the distribution was 'indicative of heterosexual intercourse'? Are you claiming that he was the only one claiming this was possible, and that everyone else stood by, either accepting it without question or tutting impotently about 'invalid' techniques and how nobody could tell anything about 'typical distributions from an action and the timeframes involved'?

4) Sceptical is fine. Even suspecting that the DNA evidence in this case leaves something to be desired is fine. What's not fine (and I'm not applying this to you) is rejecting the result, not on the basis of anything tangibly 'iffy' about it, but because it goes against one's previous strong convictions that someone other than Hanratty must have been the murderer. Once again, would the 'possible contamination' drum have been beaten at all if Alphon's DNA had shown up instead? That's what people should be asking themselves. Take away the DNA evidence and forget it if you must. But you will still not have the result you wanted or expected.

5) See 3)

6) A reasonable point, except that considering all the previous fuss I can hardly believe it would have died down as much as it has if JH's legal team could have raised any remaining concerns about contamination etc above the vanishingly remote level, with the help of all these reputable scientists with genuine misgivings about validity.

7) Thanks, I will if I haven't already.

Sorry for getting carried away with the Taft case. I just wanted to point out, in case anyone might be misled, that there was nothing wrong with the DNA evidence itself. Taft admitted it was his semen on the victim's clothing. It was the sinister interpretation put on why and how it got there that was unsafe.

Love,

Caz
X

[JamesDean]

Erm... is there a point to that? Oh yes, to call me a liar - great that's nice and productive.

Another example of you twisting my words. I didn't use the word 'liar', you inferred that yourself.

It isn't a quote see I said "comments to the effect of" like:-
"Was any one of us there to scrutinise the procedures and to verify that there could have been no mixup occurring in the lab? "
"Can you guarantee that no mixup occurred in the lab?"

I mentioned before how you like to take things out of context.

Conspiracy theories - of course noone can guarantee that the DNA test procedures were flawless, or that Elvis is dead, or the moon-landings weren't faked.

In what way is it a conspiracy theory to speculate on whether the tests on the fragment produced the correct conclusion? By mentioning Elvis and the moon landings you are implying that challenging the DNA findings is similarly outrageous.

You have offered some genuine possibilities for where contamination may have occurred on the other thread, so I looked into them and replied, but apparently my replies were twisting your words, or just direct quotes from the judgement and you gave up.

Some of your replies did twist my words because, as I have mentioned before, you take things out of context. Generally your replies showed a lack of understanding of the point I was making. I don't object to you quoting from the judgment because it is the baseline from which all arguments regarding the DNA begin. But sometimes quotes from the judgment are presented by you and others as some kind of proof. That the appeal judges concluded contamination to be unlikely, and the DNA result proved beyond all doubt JH's guilt, is simply their opinion; it is not proof of anything. What I am doing is validating and challenging the assumptions made in the judgment.

I didn't give up, as you put it, I said I had neither the time or inclination to respond. You had missed the point in several of my posts and your attitude was very dismissive. Why should I bother; it doesn't matter to me if you believe the DNA proves Hanratty's guilt. You can think what you like. I don't mind; but you mind that I believe that there is still some doubt; and as Justice Gorman says, "If you have 'any' doubt you have reasonable doubt".

My opinions carry no more or less weight than anyone elses, and I'm prepared to continue defending them. It's you that gave in remember!

I have already answered the 'you gave in' accusation. I posted a reply to that in case someone should interpret it as implying that I had in some way agreed with your opinions ... which I most certainly have not.

Please do continue to defend your opinions. It's only by looking at both sides of the argument that we can each form our own opinion or have it validated. Just don't expect me to agree with you solely because you 'say' you have shot to pieces any argument that is contrary to yours. It's not good enough for you to simply say that you are qualified to understand the science and you have examined the evidence and there is now no argument for any conclusion other than that in the judgment.

Have a nice day!

[JamesDean]

Your recent reply to jimarylyn ...

Ah I get it, you can't respond in a reasonable, constructive way so just post nonsensical critical gibberish.

Now that IS a constructive post!

[Victor]

Another example of you twisting my words. I didn't use the word 'liar', you inferred that yourself.

Erm.."You have simply jumped from one side of the fence to the other. That you claim to have changed your mind is a persuasive tool you use to show how reasonable your own opinions are."...no you didn't use the word liar but the highlighted words imply that.

I mentioned before how you like to take things out of context

Touche...Do you think your opinion of my posts is any different to my opinion of yours? We disagree, and to leave an argument by just saying "Your twisting my words" without indicating how and why is disingenious.

In what way is it a conspiracy theory to speculate on whether the tests on the fragment produced the correct conclusion? By mentioning Elvis and the moon landings you are implying that challenging the DNA findings is similarly outrageous.

Nope, wrong end of the stick. The conspiracy theory is suggesting that the scientists or police have deliberately falsified or intentionally misreported the results of the tests whether as a result of sloppy procedures or not. The analogy to the moon landing is that there exists video evidence of the event but people are challenging that this video was falsified, compared to we have the results of the DNA tests (or a conclusion based upon those results) and poeple are challenging that the results have been falsified, compared to Elvis funeral and people are challenging that this was staged. Conspiracy is a bunch of people deliberately misrepresenting (or manufacturing) evidence.

Some of your replies did twist my words because, as I have mentioned before, you take things out of context. Generally your replies showed a lack of understanding of the point I was making. I don't object to you quoting from the judgment because it is the baseline from which all arguments regarding the DNA begin. But sometimes quotes from the judgment are presented by you and others as some kind of proof. That the appeal judges concluded contamination to be unlikely, and the DNA result proved beyond all doubt JH's guilt, is simply their opinion; it is not proof of anything. What I am doing is validating and challenging the assumptions made in the judgment.

The bit in bold is true - the appeal judges concluded (with expert advisors on both sides) that the possibility of contamination is "fanciful". To say that it is their opinion is essentially true, but because it is their opinion they have the weight of the law behind them and legally they confirmed JH's guilt.

I didn't give up, as you put it, I said I had neither the time or inclination to respond. You had missed the point in several of my posts and your attitude was very dismissive. Why should I bother; it doesn't matter to me if you believe the DNA proves Hanratty's guilt. You can think what you like. I don't mind; but you mind that I believe that there is still some doubt; and as Justice Gorman says, "If you have 'any' doubt you have reasonable doubt".

I don't want to get into a sematic debate, but what exactly is the difference between giving up and having neither the time or inclination to respond?

I do not mind if you believe there is some doubt. I do not have significant doubts, in that I'm satisified that other than "conspiracy theories" every known avenue of examination of the evidence has been looked at and there are no reasons to doubt the DNA evidence.

Obviously if you have doubts you should vocalise them so I can look at them and evaluate them for myself, otherwise we're wandering into the realm of inclination, "hunches", faith, and these cannot be logically argued against because they are not logical.

I have already answered the 'you gave in' accusation. I posted a reply to that in case someone should interpret it as implying that I had in some way agreed with your opinions ... which I most certainly have not.

We disagree - great. But unless there's a logical, tangible point on which we can debate then that's where it has to end.

Please do continue to defend your opinions. It's only by looking at both sides of the argument that we can each form our own opinion or have it validated. Just don't expect me to agree with you solely because you 'say' you have shot to pieces any argument that is contrary to yours. It's not good enough for you to simply say that you are qualified to understand the science and you have examined the evidence and there is now no argument for any conclusion other than that in the judgment.

Have a nice day!

Again, it is my belief that I gave reasonable, logical, plausible explanations for the routes of contamination, etc., that you proposed. Furthermore I quoted from the judgement in order to do that because I felt that in that way I wasn't misrepresenting the data with my opinions.

You have a great day too!