A6 Murder DNA evidence

[Victor]

Your recent reply to jimarylyn ...

Now that IS a constructive post!

Compared to "JESUS wept"?

[reg1965]

Hi Victor
In answer to your reply (#25) to my post #23.

1) You gave no rebuttal to the possiblilty of contamination bar rambling on about skin moisturiser etc which just adds nothing to the debate for instance along the lines that perhaps JH was a metrosexual kind of a guy! Know what I mean Vic?

2) This is the dogs danglies of the whole matter and I will post more on this later. No Vic it is not a delaying tactic. It's my grandsons birthday and we are going to have a party, remember them do you..fun and such things.

3) I didn't say that they didn't find 3. I was just concentrating on JH's. This does not prove that the contamination is implausible. As JamesDean has said; it has not been shown exactly where the rapists deposits where on VS's knickers.

4) Are you sure that you realise what you put here? I think that you have made yourself look a bit of a berk. Also how do you know I haven't taken independent expert verification of the LCN technique? You presume too much Moriarty.

5) How many more times must I post this on here for your sorry benefit.
READ THIS BEFORE YOU GO ANY FURTHER WITH THE DNA DEBATE

http://www.theforensicinstitute.com/public_html/PressLCN.htm

slanging matches over personal traits doesn't bother me much so I will just ignore your comparison of my good wholesome self to the wretched Whitaker. So just leave it there eh tiger!

6) What on earth would I be delaying and what for. You don't think I know what I am talking about so I must be delaying things so I can run down to the library and do some more research? You can't kid a kidder son!

7) Quoted and not used. A mistake on your part, but do have a look into the John Taft case. It is a very possible miscarriage of justice. If miscarriages of justice interest you at all.

Regards
Reg

[Victor]

Hi Victor
In answer to your reply (#25) to my post #23.

Hi Reg.

1) You gave no rebuttal to the possiblilty of contamination bar rambling on about skin moisturiser etc which just adds nothing to the debate for instance along the lines that perhaps JH was a metrosexual kind of a guy! Know what I mean Vic?

My reply was to your comments about DNA transfer and I was essentially agreeing with you! Most DNA transfer is from skin flaking off you, so how dry your skin is will have a massive effect on how much DNA you shed - to infer anything about JH from that is bizarre! JH was supposed to be someone who took care of his appearance (dunno who said that!) so maybe he was a metrosexual - who knows.

Anyway as far as I can see it's utterly irrelevant becasue we're talking about semen and vaginal fluids on a piece of knickers.

2) This is the dogs danglies of the whole matter and I will post more on this later. No Vic it is not a delaying tactic. It's my grandsons birthday and we are going to have a party, remember them do you..fun and such things.

OK, I await your reply on this bit! I'll just ignore the stuff about your grandsons birthday other than - I hope you have a good time!

3) I didn't say that they didn't find 3. I was just concentrating on JH's. This does not prove that the contamination is implausible. As JamesDean has said; it has not been shown exactly where the rapists deposits where on VS's knickers.

Yes, but it's the presence of the other 2 makes the possibility of contamination implausible.

And the judgement states quite clearly where the rapists semen was and the fragment that they cut out.

4) Are you sure that you realise what you put here? I think that you have made yourself look a bit of a berk. Also how do you know I haven't taken independent expert verification of the LCN technique? You presume too much Moriarty.

Where's the problem with this statement? "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."
It stands as far as I can see.

And then you mix it up with suggestions of you having got someone else to look at the technique - missing the point that we were discussing the "DNA findings" ie the conclusions reached by the expert witness from the raw data. Have you seen the raw data? I haven't, just conclusions based on it expressed in the judgement.

I'm presuming nothing.

5) How many more times must I post this on here for your sorry benefit.
READ THIS BEFORE YOU GO ANY FURTHER WITH THE DNA DEBATE

http://www.theforensicinstitute.com/...l/PressLCN.htm

I've read it again just now. Scientists arguing - good that's how progress is made. It's mainly a criticism of the way the report has been handled and the lack of a standard methodology rather than saying "LCN doesn't work"

slanging matches over personal traits doesn't bother me much so I will just ignore your comparison of my good wholesome self to the wretched Whitaker. So just leave it there eh tiger!

What - go read it again! I was agreeing with you! I actually said "the impression I have of him is along the same lines as yourself" and I meant that my opinion of him is similar to your opinion of him - ie Whitaker is arrogant and patronising. I DID NOT COMPARE YOU TO HIM!

6) What on earth would I be delaying and what for. You don't think I know what I am talking about so I must be delaying things so I can run down to the library and do some more research? You can't kid a kidder son!

Erm...no idea, don't care! My point was that both sides of the fence would have presented their arguments, and to effectively say "one side may not have expressed themselves properly" is to deny that the other side may not have done either. The defence team made their arguments about contamination, and the prosecution side countered it in such a way as to convince the judges that the possibility of contamination was fanciful. What I understand your comments to mean is that you're reserving the right to critise the defence team for being useless if the full transcript gets released.

7) Quoted and not used. A mistake on your part, but do have a look into the John Taft case. It is a very possible miscarriage of justice. If miscarriages of justice interest you at all.

Regards
Reg

Wasn't a mistake, I left it in so as to include your full post without editting it.

I'll take a look at the Taft case when I get chance - is Caz's summary about right? I'm about to start reading "Killing for Company" as true crime does interest me (rather than possible miscarriages), which is why I got here in the first place - this being a JtR website.

[JamesDean]

Hi Victor

5) How many more times must I post this on here for your sorry benefit.
READ THIS BEFORE YOU GO ANY FURTHER WITH THE DNA DEBATE

http://www.theforensicinstitute.com/public_html/PressLCN.htm

Regards
Reg

Hi Reg,

He ignores anything that doesn't support his personal opinion and cherry picks the odd phrase here and there that he can quote out of context,

Regards
James

[Victor]

Hi Reg,

He ignores anything that doesn't support his personal opinion and cherry picks the odd phrase here and there that he can quote out of context,

Regards
James

Just stop it James, I think you do exactly that and I read everything, and you think I do that and you read everything (apart from the books!), big deal, it doesn't get us anywhere does it.

Now make a valid point or I can stoop down to your level and keep posting disparaging comments after every one of your posts just like you seem to be doing to me.

[JamesDean]

Just stop it James, I think you do exactly that and I read everything, and you think I do that and you read everything (apart from the books!), big deal, it doesn't get us anywhere does it.

Now make a valid point or I can stoop down to your level and keep posting disparaging comments after every one of your posts just like you seem to be doing to me.

There was a valid point. Reg had to post that link again after you simply ignored it's existence. Even now you brush aside the Forensic Institute press release as just scientists arguing and you state that it's just to do with the lack of a standard methodology. It goes a bit deeper than that:

There is no widespread scientific support for the technique used by the FSS Ltd, it is not internationally recognised as valid or reliable.

If the technique used by FSS Ltd is not necessarily valid or reliable in 2008 how do you suppose that I should accept that it was valid or reliable in 1997, which is the date of the tests on fragment and handkerchief?

[reg1965]

Originally Posted by reg1965
Hi Victor

5) How many more times must I post this on here for your sorry benefit.
READ THIS BEFORE YOU GO ANY FURTHER WITH THE DNA DEBATE

http://www.theforensicinstitute.com/...l/PressLCN.htm

Regards
Reg

Hi Reg,

He ignores anything that doesn't support his personal opinion and cherry picks the odd phrase here and there that he can quote out of context,

Regards
James

Hi James

I think you could be right. I was starting to gain that impression...about 2 weeks ago. Now I am convinced. (After his last post) How can he be a graduate anything, let alone a chemist, if he cannot read properly or lacks basic comprehension...tut, tut!

I got my First Class BSc (and a British Computer Society prize for best individual research project in my year to boot) because I can do the work on my own without too much help from anyone else. As an aside some lecturers were asking me for help on stuff that they didn't know! I also got accepted straight into my current MSc course, at one of the leading Computing Labs in the country, because of those factors. Reg stop blowing your own trumpet..it'll give you a limp

Maybe he just truly doesn't understand the subject of LCN DNA analysis that well and pride is standing in the way of admittal. This could be described as mild denial!

I, like you, have real doubts about an extremely important topic. I also, like Caz do not presume that true guilt or innocence may ever be proved in any one case.

The notion of our justice system is based on probabilities either way and that guilt must be judged beyond a reasonable doubt. Mistakes are made either way too. Long standing cases (and for that matter contemporary ones) such as this seem to confound the issue and polarise the debate when perhaps we should all take a step back and put ourselves in the place of a defendant, innocent or otherwise, confronted by the entire might of the British Judicial system, before, during and after a fair trial.

Cheers mate
Reg

[reg1965]

Hi Caz
My answers to your reply (#27) to my post #23

1) I have a reasonable doubt as to the procedures in the original case. The rapists deposits were not found in 1995...or then whose profile were the forensic experts looking for? Inconclusive either way! I have enough doubt in the whole process to suggest that the whole DNA circus was nothing short of that, a circus. They couldn't refute the Rhyl alibi so had to rely entirely on the evidence of Dr Whitaker. This case, imho, has been a true nightmare for the powers that be from start to finish.

2) Irrelevant? Hardly. This, as I have mentioned to Vic is the bolox of the whole argument. DNA forensic science is the best we have. When you push it too far you are going beyond what good science can produce and into realms where, if given free rein, you have only subjective results that no one can agree on as we have with LCN - SGM+ has threshold (allele peaks) guidelines that everyone agrees on. LCN does not. DNA will only give up so much information. When you are dealing with ever more minute quantities of it then you are opening up greater and greater opportunities for contamination that cannot be excluded at lower sensitivity thresholds. Resortment to removing the desired profile leaves you with more DNA that may or may not be your true suspect. Only be truly excluding an individuals DNA profile can you be sure.

3) The job of the forensic service with regard to DNA is to do the science. DNA does not have a timestamp on it. Dr Whitaker was being, to give him the benefit of any doubt, misleading and presumptuous.

4) My opinion and following that, yours.

5) see 3 as per your directions.

6) I think that considering the FSS employs the vast majority of forensic DNA operatives it would have been quite difficult (as I am sure that it is today) to find one of them who has the wherewithall to stand up in court and who is willing to take your corner. Think about it and its consequences to your career!

7) You are duely acquitted of any blame. You are free to go.

General point:

Taft Must Go Free

For more on John Taft visit;

http://www.justice-for-john-taft.org/

Regards
Reg

[Victor]

There was a valid point. Reg had to post that link again after you simply ignored it's existence. Even now you brush aside the Forensic Institute press release as just scientists arguing and you state that it's just to do with the lack of a standard methodology. It goes a bit deeper than that:

It was only a valid point if you can demonstrate that I had not read that press release before! So can you?

If the technique used by FSS Ltd is not necessarily valid or reliable in 2008 how do you suppose that I should accept that it was valid or reliable in 1997, which is the date of the tests on fragment and handkerchief?

"not necessarily" bit of a cop out those two words. Makes for an interesting argument though...

I can demonstrate by quoting the latter half of point number 5 in post #32 that Reg definitely has mis-read something, does that mean I can now safely ignore anything he says because he might have mis-read it?

I can further demonstrate that in the LCN DNA tests done on the knicker fragment that the scientists correctly identified 2 DNA profiles... so what are then the chances of the 3rd profile in that same test not being correctly identified?

[Victor]

Hi James

I think you could be right. I was starting to gain that impression...about 2 weeks ago. Now I am convinced. (After his last post) How can he be a graduate anything, let alone a chemist, if he cannot read properly or lacks basic comprehension...tut, tut!

I got my First Class BSc (and a British Computer Society prize for best individual research project in my year to boot) because I can do the work on my own without too much help from anyone else. As an aside some lecturers were asking me for help on stuff that they didn't know! I also got accepted straight into my current MSc course, at one of the leading Computing Labs in the country, because of those factors. Reg stop blowing your own trumpet..it'll give you a limp

Maybe he just truly doesn't understand the subject of LCN DNA analysis that well and pride is standing in the way of admittal. This could be described as mild denial!

I, like you, have real doubts about an extremely important topic. I also, like Caz do not presume that true guilt or innocence may ever be proved in any one case.

The notion of our justice system is based on probabilities either way and that guilt must be judged beyond a reasonable doubt. Mistakes are made either way too. Long standing cases (and for that matter contemporary ones) such as this seem to confound the issue and polarise the debate when perhaps we should all take a step back and put ourselves in the place of a defendant, innocent or otherwise, confronted by the entire might of the British Judicial system, before, during and after a fair trial.

Cheers mate
Reg

Oh look at the highlighted part above... Makes me laugh when compared to the latter half of point number 5 in post #32.

And look, no apology for the mistake either despite making further posts - is that how you handle mistakes Reg - just ignore them and hope they'll go away.

[reg1965]

Oh look at the highlighted part above... Makes me laugh when compared to the latter half of point number 5 in post #32.

And look, no apology for the mistake either despite making further posts - is that how you handle mistakes Reg - just ignore them and hope they'll go away.

Hi Victor
Ok I apologise for the misinterpretation of your comment. To me it was not totally unambiguous.

The opening paragraphs from the press release by the FI 15/4/2008

Following the judgment in the Omagh Bombing Trial ( R v Hoey [2007] NICC 49 (20 December 2007) ) including our extensive criticism of a technique used by the Forensic Science Service Ltd (FSS) to amplify and interpret very small amounts of DNA (known as “Low Copy Number” (LCN) DNA), a review was commissioned by the new Forensic Regulator. This review, conducted by Prof. Brian Caddy, Dr Adrian Linacre and Dr Graham Taylor was released last Friday (12 th April 2008). It concluded that the technique was “robust” and “fit for purpose”, although that purpose was never defined.

We are at a loss to connect the content of the report with the conclusion. If this report is to represent the scope and the depth of the work of the new office of the Forensic Regulator then we are not optimistic for the future of the quality, and in particular the reliability, of science apparently approved by the Crown for use in British courts.

The Forensic Institute and other scientists acknowledge the fact that technologies exist to amplify small amounts of DNA. On that, there is ‘robust’ science published internationally by a range of institutions in a host of reputable journals. However, it is a fact that:

(my enboldening)

Each point made in turn

The Review team did not consult anyone who had expressed contrary opinion on the merits of the FSS Ltd’s LTDNA technique and spoke only to the organisations selling the technique and to the police as ‘customers’. (This despite the Home Office’s own stated view that where commercial products are being “sold” to the police, “ the police and others are not well placed to evaluate the quality of the service provided across the range of scientific disciplines… there needs to be a mechanism to identify poor providers or services and protect the police and Criminal Justice System (CJS) from them before procurement…and the police are not the only user of forensic science and the quality standards must reflect the needs of other stakeholders in the CJS.”)

So much for a truly independent review then!

No agreement exists, even among the few providers of the service, about how the results of LTDNA profiling should be interpreted. In effect, the DNA profiles reported for LTDNA cases are likely to depend on which laboratory the material is sent to, which is clearly not the hallmark of a “robust” scientific technique.

LCN is not reliable.

There is no widespread scientific support for the technique used by the FSS Ltd, it is not internationally recognised as valid or reliable.

LCN is neither reliable or valid!

Furthermore, it is accepted by the Review that what existed and was offered by the FSS Ltd at the time of the Omagh trial was not sufficient to establish the validity of the technique.

It wasn't a valid technique when the review was instigated.

There has been no opportunity for the international scientific community, nor anyone other than the three members of the Review panel, to assess the data claimed to support the validation of the technique.

Closed shop as to the data used.

It is accepted by the Review, and apparently by the FSS Ltd, that they should apply the SWGDAM standards (developed by the Scientific Working Group on DNA Analysis Methods , a group of internationally renowned forensic DNA scientists ) which were specifically proposed by Professor Jamieson in evidence at the Omagh trial. Despite this, the FSS Ltd were not compliant with these standards then, and are not compliant with them now.

Oops!

Even the Review insists that DNA profiling requires a quantitation step; the technique used by the FSS Ltd does not have a quantitation step, and is not adhering to best practice as recognised by the Review.

Blimey! Any alarm bells ringing yet anyone!

DNA in forensic work frequently involves mixtures. The Report specifically recommends “more work” on the interpretation of mixtures (and indeed mentions mixtures only three times in 35 pages), despite the significance of mixtures in the forensic context and thus in criminal prosecutions.

General avoidance by the review body of the importance of a primary technique used in acredited DNA analysis.

A scientific report, produced for a criminal appeal case by the FSS Ltd in March 2008, contained the statement, “Preliminary indications are that this report makes no significant criticisms of the LCN technique”. This means that the FSS Ltd and its staff had knowledge of the results of the Review at least three weeks prior to its release. This despite the fact that the Home Office specifically called for the Regulator to be “independent of any forensic science provider”.

Does the term White Wash come to mind.

The concluding paragraphs.

The Review therefore lacks sufficient authority to allow any weight to be attached to its findings until all of the defects identified by the Review and other scientists have been rectified, and the clear disagreements among providers and scientists nationally and internationally have been resolved. Even by the most generous interpretation, there is clearly no general agreement in the scientific community about the reliability of LTDNA analyses as performed by the FSS Ltd. This basic tenet of, for example the Daubert standard regarding the acceptability of forensic science evidence in courts in the USA, means that the UK is likely to see evidence presented that would not meet the standard of other comparable technologically and legally advanced systems.

In short, the Report carries less weight than even a single published scientific paper (of which there have been many on this topic) and should be accorded that insignificance until the data upon which the opinions are based are made available to all and have met general scientific approval. Until then, the description of the LTDNA technique sold by the FSS Ltd as “robust” or “fit for purpose” is a denial of the serious scientific questions which remain about the reliability and validity of the technique. Taking the review as the ‘final word’ on the technique is an error with potentially serious consequences for the reputation of British science and for the Criminal Justice System.

Anybody happy with the technique known as LCNDNA or LTDNA now?

Regards
Reg

[Victor]

Hi Victor
Ok I apologise for the misinterpretation of your comment. To me it was not totally unambiguous.

Thank you Reg. I can see how you mis-read it and view it as a simple mistake. But that is my point, simple mistakes can be amplified and used to discredit someones entire output.

The opening paragraphs from the press release by the FI 15/4/2008
It concluded that the technique was “robust” and “fit for purpose”, although that purpose was never defined.

That is a criticism of the report itself and not the technique.

The Forensic Institute and other scientists acknowledge the fact that technologies exist to amplify small amounts of DNA.

How gracious of them - but it says nothing about the technique other than that it exists.

Each point made in turn
So much for a truly independent review then!

Exactly - jsut a criticism of the review, not the technique.

LCN is not reliable.

No, it clearly says the exact results depend upon the exact methodology used, which differs between the 3 labs who do the work, and that there is no consensus on which method is best. It doesn't even say that the technique is not repeatable when done in the exact same way.

LCN is neither reliable or valid!

No, the technique used by FSS (a commercial limited company) has not been released - they want to keep their hands on it and make money from it, they don't want their competitors to take business away from them. It is not international recognised or in other words it is recognised in the UK, New Zealand and the Netherlands, but not globally.

It wasn't a valid technique when the review was instigated.

Are we reading the same words? All it says is that the methodology was still being developed at the time of the Omagh trial, and that the data FSS Ltd released was insufficient for others to endorse it. It doesn't say that FSS Ltd didn't have that data, just that they wouldn't release it.

Closed shop as to the data used.

No, FSS Ltd (presumably for commercial reasons) would only release their data to the review panel.

Oops!

Why? Have you seen the Scientific Working Group on DNA Analysis Methods standards? Obviously if possible you'd want to carry out the testing in a DNA free environment - a vacuum sealed room with robot arms moving things around. That'll be the gold standard, and FSS Ltd don't achieve them, but they don't say which parts they don't meet.

OK, so as an IT bloke do you follow all the rules of your organisation religiously? Anyone know a password they shouldn't?

Blimey! Any alarm bells ringing yet anyone!

Quantitative vs qualitative. We have a qualitative result - JH's DNA was on the knicker fragment. Not all experiments can be quantitative - that'd be Heisenberg then.

General avoidance by the review body of the importance of a primary technique used in acredited DNA analysis.

Not at all - in fact that quote specifically says it was mentioned 3 times - and that more work is needed, what a surprise they're perfecting the technique.

Does the term White Wash come to mind.

What a pile of codswallop. Let's have a look at that quote again highlighting all the qualifiers...
“Preliminary indications are that this report makes no significant criticisms of the LCN technique”.
In other words, 3 weeks before the report was published one of the review board let slip to someone at FSS Ltd (who had been giving evidence to the review) that the general outcome was favourable. No more or less than that. A minor leak, with no details. I'm not saying it's right, just that it isn't a big deal and happens all the time. It could even have been an argreement that if there was anything significant then FSS Ltd would have prior sight of it so that they could start improving their technique before doing any more.

The concluding paragraphs.

The Review therefore lacks sufficient authority to allow any weight to be attached to its findings until all of the defects identified by the Review and other scientists have been rectified, and the clear disagreements among providers and scientists nationally and internationally have been resolved.
Hmm - the review is useless, but do what it says!

Even by the most generous interpretation, there is clearly no general agreement in the scientific community about the reliability of LTDNA analyses as performed by the FSS Ltd.
FSS Ltd aren't telling us how they do it - and they're not telling anyone else either - the gits!

This basic tenet of, for example the Daubert standard regarding the acceptability of forensic science evidence in courts in the USA, means that the UK is likely to see evidence presented that would not meet the standard of other comparable technologically and legally advanced systems.
The UK are the forerunners in this area of expertise and we don't like it.

In short, the Report carries less weight than even a single published scientific paper (of which there have been many on this topic) and should be accorded that insignificance until the data upon which the opinions are based are made available to all and have met general scientific approval.
We want to see their data! Show us! They didn't even release as much as would normally have gone into a scientific paper.

Until then, the description of the LTDNA technique sold by the FSS Ltd as “robust” or “fit for purpose” is a denial of the serious scientific questions which remain about the reliability and validity of the technique.
Why won't they tell us how they do it?

Taking the review as the ‘final word’ on the technique is an error with potentially serious consequences for the reputation of British science and for the Criminal Justice System.
We don't want to take the word of this review panel, we want to see the data ourselves so we can copy it!

Anybody happy with the technique known as LCNDNA or LTDNA now?

Regards
Reg

Amazing what happens when you read something with a different view in mind. I'm not saying mine is right, probably isn't spot on, the truth is probably somewhere in the middle.

[reg1965]

Hi All

The latest version I could find of the FBI's SWGDAM guidelines can be found at:

http://www.fbi.gov/hq/lab/codis/forensic.htm

The Forensic Regulators review (2008) of LT/LCN DNA can be found here:

http://police.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/operational-policing/Review_of_Low_Template_DNA_1.pdf?view=Binary

Regards
Reg

[Victor]

Cheers Reg.

So from the first link the SWGDAM guidelines, a lab will fail if:-
the analysts don't all have at a minimum a BA/BS degree or its equivalent degree in biology-, chemistry- or forensic science- related area
or
all Lab Personnel don't have a written job description for personnel to include responsibilities, duties and skills.

amongst other things. You get the point lots of gold standard stuff, which should be done, and who knows what FSS failed on?

[reg1965]

Thank you Reg. I can see how you mis-read it and view it as a simple mistake. But that is my point, simple mistakes can be amplified and used to discredit someones entire output.....

....The Review therefore lacks sufficient authority to allow any weight to be attached to its findings until all of the defects identified by the Review and other scientists have been rectified, and the clear disagreements among providers and scientists nationally and internationally have been resolved.
Hmm - the review is useless, but do what it says!

Even by the most generous interpretation, there is clearly no general agreement in the scientific community about the reliability of LTDNA analyses as performed by the FSS Ltd.
FSS Ltd aren't telling us how they do it - and they're not telling anyone else either - the gits!

This basic tenet of, for example the Daubert standard regarding the acceptability of forensic science evidence in courts in the USA, means that the UK is likely to see evidence presented that would not meet the standard of other comparable technologically and legally advanced systems.
The UK are the forerunners in this area of expertise and we don't like it.

In short, the Report carries less weight than even a single published scientific paper (of which there have been many on this topic) and should be accorded that insignificance until the data upon which the opinions are based are made available to all and have met general scientific approval.
We want to see their data! Show us! They didn't even release as much as would normally have gone into a scientific paper.

Until then, the description of the LTDNA technique sold by the FSS Ltd as “robust” or “fit for purpose” is a denial of the serious scientific questions which remain about the reliability and validity of the technique.
Why won't they tell us how they do it?

Taking the review as the ‘final word’ on the technique is an error with potentially serious consequences for the reputation of British science and for the Criminal Justice System.
We don't want to take the word of this review panel, we want to see the data ourselves so we can copy it!.....

Afternoon Victor.
I apologised to you. I gave my reason so have the good grace to just accept it and leave it there eh? These things can get out of hand and point scoring can lead to where one of us may just end up calling the other an a**ehole. I don't want that.

Following are my thoughts on the 6 points you made about the closing paragraphs of the FI's press release that are quoted above.

1) Highlight the word findings and read it again from the beginning.

2) 2 points here. i) The FI already knows all about LT/LCN. This is obvious because they were the defence expert witnesses that had it thrown out of the Hoey appeal and caused the review in the first place. ii) If the FSS are not telling anyone about how it works how can it possibly be rebutted in a court of law. Do we just have to accept it as the 11th commandment then?

3) The FBI's SWGDAM is the accepted guideline on DNA analysis throughout the world. It has to be for one reason at least, that if DNA evidence in the US was at all dodgy you would get a million defence lawyers beating your door down! Also do I detect a little bit of nationalistic bias creeping in here.

4) See 2

5) See 2

6) "We don't want to take the word of this review panel,..." For the good scientific reasons that the FI has stated.
"...we want to see the data ourselves so we can copy it!" See 2 above.
I am not sure whether or not you got the impression from this section of the FI's conclusion that a warning was being given that the justice system and science in this country will suffer greatly until LCN has been validated under the SWGDAM guidelines which the FSS said that they would comply with. It hasn't been complied with at all since LCN's first case use in 1999. It has no validation at all from any other body bar the FSS itself!

Regards
Reg