A6 Murder DNA evidence

[reg1965]

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?

Hi Victor
They certainly failed on point 3.1.1 (f) Validation which as you know is, inter alia, an absolute minimum.

Thanks again
Reg

[reg1965]

Hi Victor

Now I come to your response to the main points put forward by the FI.

There were 11 you put forward and I have numbered them thus.

1) From the opening paragraphs. Agreed. Yet I further believe that this means the conclusion of the review body's report stated something that was never defined. That is that the purpose of the technique was not stated in either the executive summary (abstract) or the main body of the report and should not have, obviously, therefore need concluding on.

2) SGM+ is the one I think you are looking for here. It is validated because it only looks for allele peaks in the supra 150rfu range. Taking into account the sensitivity of DNA amplification SGM+ replicate samples can be verfied by other labs. It is therefore robust and fit for purpose.

3) You said "Exactly - jsut a criticism of the review, not the technique.", although the Home Office guidelines state .."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."
Are you not concerned with the notion of justice?

4) See 2

5) See 2 from my post#45

6) It has never been validated, from its inception in the 90's by anyone outside of the FSS. Neither I nor the press release mentions anything about data or any non release of data on this particular point!

7) The Forensic Regulator should have been independent of any provider or client of the services offered. The data that the review based its conclusions on has not been seen by independent scientists to validate those conclusions.

8) See my post #46

9) Without any quantatitive measure of the reliablility of the technique it cannot be validated.

10) They have had over 10 years to get it right and it still isn't right. DNA analysis can only reveal what it reveals. When dealing with mixes of minute samples of DNA the allele thresholds are thus reduced to the point where one analyst identifies an allele peak that another could and usually does miss.

11) The quote you have taken was used in a criminal appeal case by the FSS in the month before the report was officially released thus contravening the remit of the review and using insider information in a court case. Do you not think that this is a scandal and rather more significant than the minor leak you purport it to be? Besides this, all police use of the technique was suspended pending the reports findings. What was supposed to be a truly independent review of the science has become a white wash, as I correctly stated.

Regards
Reg

[Victor]

Hi Reg,

Busy this morning, and going on holiday for a week so I thought I'd let you know.

My brief comments on your replies are:-

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.

I think we're running at cross-purposes here. I thought I had accepted you apology, if not, sorry and thank you apology accepted. My point was that other people make mistakes too - including scientists, lawyers, judges, police - and reputations can be destroyed because of one simple silly mistake. From your posts you are obviously an intelligent and articulate bloke, and I'm enjoying a civil (public) disagreement with you. I'm particularly impressed with your research and the fact that you've posted links to the reports.

People will read a report in different ways, even seemingly unambiguous statements can be misinterpreted. I've done it too. And that's where it can get confusing because intention and motive can confuse matters - a bunch of scientists can get together with the intention of discreditting a technique, motivated by jealousy, and so write a scathing report highlighting every minor discrepancy. I'm not saying that has happened in this case, but it may have. I also realise that it's difficult to argue that, which is why I commented on each section of the report.

How independant is independant? In 1888 were the Met police independant of the City police? They're still both police though.

Independant validation of emergent technologies are difficult to guarantee independance because of the issue of confidentiallity and industrial espionage. Are there any patents pending concerning LT?

DNA profile recognition in the early stages used 4 alleles, they now use 10, the comparison that was given to me was each allele is equivalent to a print from one finger, and it was thought that finding 4 matches was conclusive proof - and I'm not aware of any case where a DNA match using 4 has ever been wrong. Of course that includes where contamination has taken place by Police Investigators, Lab Techs, Paramedics, etc., these DNA profiles have been identified and eliminated.

Point 9 "Without any quantatitive measure of the reliablility of the technique it cannot be validated" - I don't get. Qualitative results of the sort "VS, MG and JH's DNA profiles were detected" is surely all you need, that's all some tests do. There are also many degrees of quantification, which one's needed:-
a) We can detect DNA profiles from 0.5 nano-g
b) MG's profile was 1/10 that of JH which was 1/10 of VS
c) step 1 of 34: 0.5ng of DNA yielded 0.9ng etc...

On the other thread you asked whether the technique is destructive. The answer is "sort of", the fragment is washed to extract the DNA into a liquid medium, therefore the knicker fragment is not destroyed, but most of the DNA on it is washed off. Note that it's "most of" if the detection technique improves then it may be possible in the future to detect whos DNA remains on it, but the technique used would need to be massively more sensitive. I do not know if the entire fragment was washed in either of the DNA tests.

[caz]

Hi James,

You wrote to Victor:

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.

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".

You are of course entitled to have personal doubts about the evidence that persuaded the jury to convict Hanratty in the first place and also (or is it therefore? ) about the DNA evidence that subsequently persuaded the appeal judges. But you cannot deny that it is not your doubts that count, and for very good reason. Even if you and Reg and ten other good men and true, all entertaining the same genuine doubts, got together and formed your own jury it would do no good because that’s not how the legal system works and thank goodness for that. Justice Gorman was presumably equating ‘doubt’ with ‘reasonable doubt’ only in the context of the people whose joint verdict is being solicited and has to be respected according to law. I’m sure he didn’t mean that whatever doubts you or I or any other Tom, Dick or Harry might have must be considered ‘reasonable’ regardless of how - and more crucially why - they may have been formed.

I will only repeat what I have said before because nobody seems to want to deal with this: a) would you have had any doubts about the integrity or validity of the DNA evidence if it had turned up a second male profile that wasn’t JH’s, in addition to the matches for MG and VS? b) have you ever expressed a single reservation where DNA evidence has been used to overturn a conviction and release someone back into society?

In short, do you have doubts about all DNA evidence across the board (in which case you would have to reject or question every verdict that has been based on it) or only about the specifics in certain cases including this one? If it’s the latter, how have you been distinguishing doubtful DNA evidence from reliable? Are your doubts quite separate and independent from those you already had about the non-forensic evidence, or simply an extension of them?

Do you see what I’m getting at?

The problem for you and Reg is that with or without the DNA evidence, you still don’t have any evidence that someone else committed this crime or even could have committed it. Doubt it as much as you like, but the DNA evidence cannot be made to point in any direction but the one you didn’t expect.

...but do have a look into the John Taft case. It is a very possible miscarriage of justice.

Hi Reg,

You’re at it again! It’s highly misleading because I don’t think anyone has disputed the fact that miscarriages of justice can and do happen, and for all sorts of reasons. So why bring up one case of 'possible' miscarriage that has bugger all to do with DNA testing techniques, but is wholly concerned with whether the semen confirmed by DNA analysis to be Taft’s (beyond reasonable doubt because Taft himself admitted to leaving some!) could have been deposited innocently or only within the context of the murder? It's simply not relevant to this discussion.

Love,

Caz
X

[JamesDean]

On the other thread you asked whether the technique is destructive. The answer is "sort of", the fragment is washed to extract the DNA into a liquid medium, therefore the knicker fragment is not destroyed, but most of the DNA on it is washed off. Note that it's "most of" if the detection technique improves then it may be possible in the future to detect whos DNA remains on it, but the technique used would need to be massively more sensitive. I do not know if the entire fragment was washed in either of the DNA tests.

Hi Victor

I haven't had time to post in the last couple of days as I have to work occasionally. As you are about to go on holiday I thought I would post a quickie and wish you a happy holiday! I expect we shall resume 'pistols at dawn' when you return but hopefully not.

On the subject of the knicker fragment you have touched on a point I was going to raise. It relates to the question I posed to Caz about this passage in the judgment to which you have also referred ...

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.

As you have just pointed out, the knicker fragment would have been washed to extract any DNA into a solution. What then is meant by a 'typical distribution of male and female DNA'? It's a vague statement that is subject to interpretation.

The distribution of material on the fragment may be a typical distribution of semen and vaginal fluid following an act of sexual intercourse but you can't 'see' the DNA and generate a profile, or profiles, until after the DNA has been extracted into a solution and subjected to 34 PCR cycles to amplify it. How then can Dr Whitaker refer to a typical distribution of male and female DNA etc? It's floating around in a solution!

Something for you to think about.

Just to clarify the history of the fragment. The fragment 'discovered' in 1991 is not the same piece of crotch exhibited at the trial. Presumably that was destroyed with other items in April 1962 after the demise of James Hanratty. Part of the rediscovered fragment, that had lain dormant in a laboratory file, was used in the 1995 test that was unsuccessful. The 1997 test used the remaining part of the fragment so I guess we could refer to this as a fragment of a fragment. I expect it was quite small but how small I could not say with any accuracy. The 2000 test was only performed on parts exhumed from James Hanratty's body and this was compared with the profile obtained in the 1997 test.

Regards
James

[Victor]

Hi Victor

I haven't had time to post in the last couple of days as I have to work occasionally. As you are about to go on holiday I thought I would post a quickie and wish you a happy holiday! I expect we shall resume 'pistols at dawn' when you return but hopefully not.

Cheers James,

As you have just pointed out, the knicker fragment would have been washed to extract any DNA into a solution. What then is meant by a 'typical distribution of male and female DNA'? It's a vague statement that is subject to interpretation.

The distribution of material on the fragment may be a typical distribution of semen and vaginal fluid following an act of sexual intercourse but you can't 'see' the DNA and generate a profile, or profiles, until after the DNA has been extracted into a solution and subjected to 34 PCR cycles to amplify it. How then can Dr Whitaker refer to a typical distribution of male and female DNA etc? It's floating around in a solution!

Something for you to think about.

That's an important point, is it distribution meaning ratio, but that would mean that the test was quantitative - which of course Reg has pointed out that it isn't quantitative.

Or is it distribution meaning configuration on the material - which could only be done if the fragment was washed in a section by section manner - and although they do do it twice, there's no indication that they were any more specific than that.

Or it could mean a physical (maybe under UV-light) examination of the fragment, to see where the staining was. In my experience semen and vaginal fluids do visibly stain material, but I've no idea whether the stain fades or becomes more prominent over time, especially as long as 40 years. We do have the 5 inches up the back comment to factor in.

Just to clarify the history of the fragment. The fragment 'discovered' in 1991 is not the same piece of crotch exhibited at the trial. Presumably that was destroyed with other items in April 1962 after the demise of James Hanratty. Part of the rediscovered fragment, that had lain dormant in a laboratory file, was used in the 1995 test that was unsuccessful. The 1997 test used the remaining part of the fragment so I guess we could refer to this as a fragment of a fragment. I expect it was quite small but how small I could not say with any accuracy. The 2000 test was only performed on parts exhumed from James Hanratty's body and this was compared with the profile obtained in the 1997 test.

Regards
James

I believe that the fragment was cut from the crotch, and only the remainder of the knickers were exhibited at the trial and subsequently destroyed. What I don't know is whether the original fragment was further divided for the 95 test, nor what remained for the 97 test, it'd be interesting to find out.

Of course the timeline you've indicated does mean that the fragment was never in contact with JH's DNA from the exhumed body, eliminating one possible source of contamination, because they didn't have a sample of it until 2000.

[reg1965]

You’re at it again! It’s highly misleading because I don’t think anyone has disputed the fact that miscarriages of justice can and do happen, and for all sorts of reasons. So why bring up one case of 'possible' miscarriage that has bugger all to do with DNA testing techniques, but is wholly concerned with whether the semen confirmed by DNA analysis to be Taft’s (beyond reasonable doubt because Taft himself admitted to leaving some!) could have been deposited innocently or only within the context of the murder? It's simply not relevant to this discussion.

Good grief!

I only asked if you had looked at the Taft case just out of a general interest, maybe, possibly in a possible miscarriage of justice. Nothing more sinister then that. You do get carried away. You seem to see things that are plainly not there. I wonder what is the point of continuing in arguing the toss with you anymore.
You plainly do not know what you are talking about with regards to the science (you are not alone there either) and you keep banging on about anyone not ever being able to prove such and such's innocence or guilt or whatever. I think we know that.
So what have you got to say that brings anything new to the argument. I haven't seen anything yet that has been truly revelatory.
I posted irrelevant material on the main A6 thread about favourite jury/trials films and you answered and didn't think that was irrelevant. Make up your mind eh!
In fact until anyone posts anything interesting I will be working on my life size matchstick model of George W Bush.

[reg1965]

Hi Victor
Have a nice holiday.

My Dubya is coming along nicely...it's already more intelligent than the real thing

With regard to a quantitation step as put forward by the Forensic Institute, it means setting a standard allele threshold level of however many rfu's (Relative Fluorescent Unit) (SGM+ is set at 150rfu's) so that one replicate sample from one lab can be judged against another in another lab, rather than each lab arbitrarily setting their own. This is therefore a quantitation in terms of measurement through precise calibration of equipment across the board.
Comparison of ratios is just the application of natural number and their operations to ascertain size (quantity in that respect).
I've got a five year old pair of pants with quite a large visible stain on them. You are welcome to stick them under a UV lamp if you so wish. It is not quite 5 inches up the back but you could factor in the rest.

Regards
Reg

[Victor]

My Dubya is coming along nicely...it's already more intelligent than the real thing

It started out more intelligent as a tree - shame someone felt the need to cut it down and chop it to bits.

With regard to a quantitation step as put forward by the Forensic Institute, it means setting a standard allele threshold level of however many rfu's (Relative Fluorescent Unit) (SGM+ is set at 150rfu's) so that one replicate sample from one lab can be judged against another in another lab, rather than each lab arbitrarily setting their own. This is therefore a quantitation in terms of measurement through precise calibration of equipment across the board.
Comparison of ratios is just the application of natural number and their operations to ascertain size (quantity in that respect).

Do you know if they use internal standards to measure the success of each replication step?

I've got a five year old pair of pants with quite a large visible stain on them. You are welcome to stick them under a UV lamp if you so wish. It is not quite 5 inches up the back but you could factor in the rest.

Is it stained with semen and vaginal fluids? Not sure I'm interested if it isn't, actually I'm positive I'm not interested anyway!!! There are fetish websites where you could sell them for a furtune.

all, have a good week, I certainly intend to.

[reg1965]

Do you know if they use internal standards to measure the success of each replication step?

Hi Victor
I am not quite sure what you mean here.
Are you talking about replicate samples or PCR amplification?
Reg

[reg1965]

Templeton Woods Murders

Hi All

Templeton Woods Murders

In February 1980 a shy quiet 20 year old nursery nurse, Elizabeth McCabe, disappeared after a night out in Dundee. Just over two weeks later her body was found in the nearby Templeton Woods. A year before, the body of another woman, 18 year old Carol Lannen was found in the same woods. Miss Lannen's handbag was later discovered a fair distance away in Aberdeenshire.
Miss McCabe had been assaulted, beaten and strangled. Her handbag was found close to the home of a man known to Miss McCabe. It seemed that a serial killer was at large, although the police contrasted the lifestyles of both women by stating that Miss Lannen was working as a prostitute at the time of her death and therefore the killings were not officially connected.
Although the police sought many suspects, boyfriends and taxi drivers and items were taken as evidence, no evidence existed to connect anyone to either crime at the time. The case lay dormant until 2003.
In 2003, by chance, police came across the original evidence including Miss McCabes blue jumper, her jeans and a swab taken from her body. Other items such as her underwear and tights had gone missing.
DNA analysis was carried out by a Dr Jonathan Whitaker of the Forensic Science Service and was compared to the national DNA database. Focus was placed, as was done during the original investigation, on taxi drivers. A match was found belonging to a certain Vincent Simpson, who had had some previous minor convictions in his past, then living in Surrey who was indeed a taxi driver in Dundee at the time and claimed as an alibi that he was either at home, taxiing, or at a local casino. No other forensic or witness evidence was brought against Mr Simpson. The prosecution indeed in their closing statement advised the jury that to convict they must take the DNA evidence to be enough!
Mr Simpsons DNA had been found on Miss McCabes belongings and had, the defence claimed, got there via contamination with items taken from him at the time of the original investigation.
Mark Stewart QC for the defence confronted Dr Whitaker on the reason for Mr Simpsons DNA being present and Dr Whitaker agreed that contamination was a distinct possiblility yet stood by his original findings despite mixed profiles existing. The prosecution had stated that the chances of the profile belonging to anyone else other than Mr Simpson was 1 in 40 million!
In closing Mr Stewart said;
"Vincent Simpson had the misfortune to have material with his DNA on it taken possession of by police at the time." He claimed DNA partly matching Mr Simpson's profile, found on the jumper draped over Ms McCabe's body, got there because items of evidence were badly stored. He went on "They would have been better taking a blender, putting it all in and firing it up," said the lawyer. "The DNA originated from Mr Simpson. Where it originated from is one question but it gives no clue to the question in this case: How did it get where it was found?" Mr Stewart continued: "Contamination in this case, ladies and gentlemen, is a real and live issue. I think, ladies and gentlemen, there is ample evidence of contamination but I don't have to prove it. The Crown have to negate it."
The jury took just 3 hours to acquit Mr Simpson.
The amount of money spent by the police on DNA testing in this case has been estimated at perhaps near to one million pounds.

Food for thought eh!

Don't have nightmares
Reg

[caz]

Hi Reg,

Horrible case - and of course the worst thing about it is that the killer got away with it, whoever he was.

Good grief!

I only asked if you had looked at the Taft case just out of a general interest, maybe, possibly in a possible miscarriage of justice. Nothing more sinister then that. You do get carried away. You seem to see things that are plainly not there. I wonder what is the point of continuing in arguing the toss with you anymore.
You plainly do not know what you are talking about with regards to the science (you are not alone there either) and you keep banging on about anyone not ever being able to prove such and such's innocence or guilt or whatever. I think we know that.
So what have you got to say that brings anything new to the argument. I haven't seen anything yet that has been truly revelatory.
I posted irrelevant material on the main A6 thread about favourite jury/trials films and you answered and didn't think that was irrelevant. Make up your mind eh!
In fact until anyone posts anything interesting I will be working on my life size matchstick model of George W Bush.

Sorry I spoke, I'm sure!

I thought this was a thread purely started to debate the validity and integrity or otherwise of the DNA evidence in the Hanratty case. As such, I am (still) trying to ascertain whether you reject all verdicts across the board if they are based on DNA evidence, or just the verdicts you disagree with personally for other, non-forensic reasons.

The Taft case merely illustrates that DNA can be identified correctly (although it doesn't necessarily mean the evidence is only capable of one interpretation) - which means that despite all the protests and condescending remarks about who knows what they are talking about and who doesn't, you've still got a long way to go to show that the DNA on the victim's knickers was attributed to JH incorrectly (but correctly to VS and MG) and that someone else raped and shot her, and we are therefore dealing with a case of misidentification or contamination, semen doing Houdini impressions, or various conspirators from the rotten criminal classes and the even more rotten establishment. I don't have to know much about science to know that much. So please don't assume you can blind me with it. You're the one with your work cut out to fight what science has concluded here, not me.

Love,

Caz
X

[reg1965]

I thought this was a thread purely started to debate the validity and integrity or otherwise of the DNA evidence in the Hanratty case. As such, I am (still) trying to ascertain whether you reject all verdicts across the board if they are based on DNA evidence, or just the verdicts you disagree with personally for other, non-forensic reasons.

The Taft case merely illustrates that DNA can be identified correctly (although it doesn't necessarily mean the evidence is only capable of one interpretation) - which means that despite all the protests and condescending remarks about who knows what they are talking about and who doesn't, you've still got a long way to go to show that the DNA on the victim's knickers was attributed to JH incorrectly (but correctly to VS and MG) and that someone else raped and shot her, and we are therefore dealing with a case of misidentification or contamination, semen doing Houdini impressions, or various conspirators from the rotten criminal classes and the even more rotten establishment. I don't have to know much about science to know that much. So please don't assume you can blind me with it. You're the one with your work cut out to fight what science has concluded here, not me.

Love,

Caz
X

Yes and a thread that was started as you (post #3) stated;

In short, if forensic evidence could only ever confirm your opinion, but never sway you from it, I understand why you want to distance it from the main discussion as a total irrelevance in this particular case. But shoving it to one side just makes it look like it's relevant enough to be inconvenient.

and Victor (post #4);

Can't argue against the DNA, so let's just sweep it all aside into another thread.

No I don't reject DNA evidence in convictions or acquittals across the board. I have already said so. You should read my posts more closely or avoid coming into debates in mid session.

You plainly do not understand the science and I put it further that you have not done any in depth research into the so called science that caused the Hanratty appeal to fail. For that I feel a little disappointed as anyone would when debating a subject when the opposition just turns up and starts throwing insults around.

Therefore you have no authority to tell me what is right or wrong.

So until you come up with some valid arguments why don't you just go away and keep your petty bigotry to yourself. You obviously have no intention of taking your head out of the sand and thinking for yourself. People like you believe any old crap that is placed before them and buy it as the new religion. So called advances in DNA technology just happens to be one of them.

Reg

[caz]

You plainly do not understand the science and I put it further that you have not done any in depth research into the so called science that caused the Hanratty appeal to fail. For that I feel a little disappointed as anyone would when debating a subject when the opposition just turns up and starts throwing insults around.

Therefore you have no authority to tell me what is right or wrong.

So until you come up with some valid arguments why don't you just go away and keep your petty bigotry to yourself. You obviously have no intention of taking your head out of the sand and thinking for yourself. People like you believe any old crap that is placed before them and buy it as the new religion. So called advances in DNA technology just happens to be one of them.

Reg

Hi Reg,

Read the above - your own words - and then tell me just who is the one here 'throwing insults around'. I don't believe I've insulted you once, but if you think I have then it was not my intention. If you are this quick to take offence then maybe the message boards are not a good place for you.

I may not understand the science that 'caused the Hanratty appeal to fail' (or more accurately, the science used to support the original conviction). And I certainly haven't got any authority to tell you what to believe or what's right or wrong. But as things stand I don't have to believe anything, know anything, or try to convince you of anything, since I'm not the one claiming anything. You are. You are claiming that the DNA evidence should have been ruled inadmissible, because you have invested too much faith in Hanratty's innocence to consider that it could be reliably telling you that he was guilty after all. Your problem, not mine.

I actually feel for you because it must be terribly frustrating not to have been actively involved in the appeal, so you could have authoritatively explained to everyone else why the DNA evidence was fatally flawed and the conclusions reached from it nonsensical. If this is all too obvious to anyone who knows about the science involved, then it's all the more astonishing that the result didn't cause much more of an uproar than it did, and you are now reduced to arguing the toss about it on a Jack the Ripper message board with some thick tart who knows nothing.

Maybe all those who might have joined your fight against this travesty are too busy condemning science for its failure to link MMR jabs with autism, while children everywhere are left to hurtle back to the bad old days of the measles.

Love,

Caz
X

[Victor]

Hi all,

Re: Templeton Woods Murders

Reading through Reg's post the details given make complete sense and the correct verdict was reached - why it should take as long as 3 hours I don't know.

I can see similarities to the Hanratty case but there are enough differences to limit direct comparison, the main one being a confirmed route of contamination which Dr Whitaker acknowledged. From http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/...al/7113322.stm
"Mr Stewart also said that other hair and DNA traces had been found. The DNA they yielded matched police officers, a forensic scientist and a pathologist." Therefore we have at least 4 other contaminant profiles (assuming at least 2 police officers) Compare this to Hanratty where there is no indication of any contamination whatsoever from the scientists\technicians.

Therefore, why have you exclaimed "The prosecution had stated that the chances of the profile belonging to anyone else other than Mr Simpson was 1 in 40 million!"? I'm convinced that the profile was Simpsons, it's just we know how it got there.

That case casts no shadow over Dr Whitaker or the technique, he is a "World renowned forensic scientist" [quote from link above] and gave evidence concerning the science and in the process admitted the possibility of contamination, he did not give evidence on the legal or criminal aspects.

The cost of the case is high, but not relevant unless you are using it to suggest that DNA should never be investigated as it is prohibitively expensive, otherwise it should be used in every case where there is forensic evidence. All or nothing.

Are you talking about replicate samples or PCR amplification?

Neither, I was referring to internal standards (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internal_standard) as an attempt to quantify each of the 34 stages of replication.

Kind regards,
Vic.