A6 Murder DNA evidence

[reg1965]

Hi All
Another excellent scientific resource about the failings of LCN to elicit profiles correctly.

http://www.cstl.nist.gov/biotech/strbase/pub_pres/LCNintro_MAAFSworkshop_May2006.pdf

Check out slide 5 on page 9. I quote "LCN.....May not be able to associate DNA profile with bloodstain or other visual evidence".

And slide 3 on page 10 "Tissue source cannot be determined".

So how could Whitaker in Hanratty(2002) suggest that the DNA was from sperm?

If the less sensitive techniques used in 1995 proved inconclusive then considering the evidence was nigh on forty years old and with all the degredation that has taken place this makes the DNA evidence in Hanratty next to useless.

Regards
The abusive bully.

[Victor]

So how could Whitaker in Hanratty(2002) suggest that the DNA was from sperm?

Simple - you need to read the link posted by DM a few pages back.

It's possible to separate sperm heads from every other source of DNA in a sample, and once isolated the sperm heads can then be profiled.

KR,
Vic.

[jimarilyn]

Oh look, some more massaging of the truth.* Let's have some FACTS shall we:-I have a degree in chemistry, but do not work as a chemist.

Just a minor observation here Victor. In post 12 you clearly state ....I'm a graduate chemist and capable of understanding the science.

regards,
James

[Victor]

Just a minor observation here Victor. In post 12 you clearly state ....I'm a graduate chemist and capable of understanding the science.

regards,
James

Yes, I'm a graduate chemist - I graduated with a Chemistry degreee.

KR,
Vic BSc(Hons) Ebor.

[jimarilyn]

I graduated with a Chemistry degreee.

KR,
Vic BSc(Hons) Ebor.

Glad you waited, as one of our Oriental cousins might say. Or even Jonathan Woss (the chap who can't tell his 'r' s from his 'l' s bows).

[Victor]

Hi All

An excellent scientific overview of the failings of LCN and it's unsuitability for use in the Criminal Justice System.

http://www.theforensicinstitute.com/PDF/Jamieson%20statement%202.pdf

Regards
Reg

Well, firstly it's not a "scientific overview of the failings of LCN and it's unsuitability for use in the Criminal Justice System" it's a Defence Team's Expert response (or rebuttal) and is therefore by definition biased.

And page 3 explicitly discusses the stability of DNA, here's a great quote "DNA is an inherently stable molecule and requires something to destroy or degrade it; examples are action by light, cellular enzymes, or bacteria." and "DNA has been extracted from mummies (albeit with mixed success), and profiles are routinely obtained in Medical Genetics from blood spots on card stored at room temperature that are at least 40 years old". Are you trying to destroy your own arguments Reg?

I'll get round to reading the other article later...

KR,
Vic.

[caz]

Hi All,

So what's the latest theory to explain away the DNA profiles obtained from hankie and knickers that were considered to be perfectly consistent with Hanratty having used the former and having left his semen on the latter?

Hi Reg,

Apologies if you have already addressed the following somewhere and I have missed it, but when did you first start to have sore misgivings about the ability of DNA evidence that was 'nigh on forty years old' to resolve this case? Was it before or after the results were published?

I ask, because you wrote: 'If the less sensitive techniques used in 1995 proved inconclusive then considering the evidence was nigh on forty years old and with all the degredation that has taken place this makes the DNA evidence in Hanratty next to useless.'

The information that has led you to this conclusion would be exactly the same regardless of what the DNA evidence in this particular case had indicated. So can you state for the record that you would be using exactly the same criteria, and therefore judging the DNA evidence to be 'next to useless', if it had indicated that Alphon, or another individual, was the rapist and Hanratty innocent?

Something's gotta give. If the DNA evidence in this case was always going to be 'next to useless', regardless of the results, you could never have used it even if it had pointed to Hanratty's innocence. Or would you have made an exception in that case and loosened your grip on all this DNA weaponry you keep brandishing?

I think that's what is known in layman's terms as shooting yourself in the foot.

Love,

Caz
X

[reg1965]

Hi All,

So what's the latest theory to explain away the DNA profiles obtained from hankie and knickers that were considered to be perfectly consistent with Hanratty having used the former and having left his semen on the latter?

Hi Reg,

Apologies if you have already addressed the following somewhere and I have missed it, but when did you first start to have sore misgivings about the ability of DNA evidence that was 'nigh on forty years old' to resolve this case? Was it before or after the results were published?

I ask, because you wrote: 'If the less sensitive techniques used in 1995 proved inconclusive then considering the evidence was nigh on forty years old and with all the degredation that has taken place this makes the DNA evidence in Hanratty next to useless.'

The information that has led you to this conclusion would be exactly the same regardless of what the DNA evidence in this particular case had indicated. So can you state for the record that you would be using exactly the same criteria, and therefore judging the DNA evidence to be 'next to useless', if it had indicated that Alphon, or another individual, was the rapist and Hanratty innocent?

Something's gotta give. If the DNA evidence in this case was always going to be 'next to useless', regardless of the results, you could never have used it even if it had pointed to Hanratty's innocence. Or would you have made an exception in that case and loosened your grip on all this DNA weaponry you keep brandishing?

I think that's what is known in layman's terms as shooting yourself in the foot.

Love,

Caz
X

I have always been sceptical of scientific evidence put before courts. Too much emphasis is placed on it with regard to its actual value.
The DNA technique used in Hanratty (2002) that was reported to match JH's profile is called LCN. It is a totally unreliable evidential tool for use in the criminal justice system. It has never been validated outside of the FSS. Only 2 other countries use it and Whitaker has to dart about to explain its use. Recently he has not had a very easy time of it under more informed questioning by defence teams. His evidential involvement in the Bradley Murdoch trial looks likely to be overturned in the future.
LCN could not have elicited any decernable replicatable profile from the evidence available. In my opinion Dr Johnathan Whitaker was not being entirely candid to say the least.
Whether or not it is able to prove Hanratty guilty or innocent, it certainly should not be used as the sole arbitrater of guilt or innocence. Other convincing evidence must be brought in to corroborate the DNA findings. The more sensitive the technique (and LCN is the most sensitive) the more and more unreliable the findings.
Since the original trial which most people on here think should have acquitted JH nothing has been found to further incriminate him. On the contrary, more evidence points to his innocence. (and not as Victor stated on the other thread the other day about JH's exhumation, original inconclusive tests etc. Exhuming a body for DNA or getting an inconclusive test does not incriminate anybody!!!!).
The new evidence brought by the defence before the appeal would have swayed the original jury to acquittal in my opinion.

Don't try shooting yourself in the foot, you might blow your brains out!

[caz]

Morning Reg,

Have some common sense. Why on earth did you quote my entire post, when it already appears as large as life immediately above your response?? And if you can't or won't even make yourself aware of the Casebook posting guidelines re unnecessary quoting, under Read This First, what hope is there for your awareness in general?

I'll let you off this time, though, because I suppose you were too busy noticing that I have more brains in my foot than certain people have in their heads.

Now then, to the nitty-gritty.

I have always been sceptical of scientific evidence put before courts. Too much emphasis is placed on it with regard to its actual value...

...LCN could not have elicited any decernable replicatable profile from the evidence available.

Fine, so please concentrate and answer my question. Before the DNA results came out, were you planning to reject them, even if they had indicated someone else's guilt (eg Alphon) and Hanratty's innocence? Or would you have embraced them and now be shaking a big pro-DNA stick at people instead of your anti-DNA version? A straight answer would be appreciated.

Whether or not it is able to prove Hanratty guilty or innocent, it certainly should not be used as the sole arbitrater of guilt or innocence. Other convincing evidence must be brought in to corroborate the DNA findings.

Er, how is that remotely logical? Proof is proof and therefore is the sole arbitrater. I think you meant 'indicate' here.

But it's ok anyway, because the DNA findings in this case served to corroborate the other evidence that convinced the original jury.

Since the original trial which most people on here think should have acquitted JH nothing has been found to further incriminate him...

...The new evidence brought by the defence before the appeal would have swayed the original jury to acquittal in my opinion.

But if Hanratty had been acquitted back in 1962 for lack of sufficiently incriminating evidence, that would still have been light years away from proving him innocent. The same would apply to any new evidence brought since the trial, unless I've missed the bit that proves Hanratty wasn't the rapist and therefore proves the DNA findings to be in error.

Even if you could provide a persuasive argument for the case against Hanratty not being an open and shut one despite the DNA results, your personal opinion that he could not have been guilty would need infinitely more work.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Hi Reg,

Sorry, I forgot to ask this again: what's your latest theory to explain the specific DNA findings? Have you given up on the forty year-old contamination event involving Hanratty's trousers? Are you now going with misidentification?

How would you reconcile the matching profiles apparently obtained from both hankie and knickers, if it wasn't Hanratty's DNA? How many individuals could have used/handled the former and left sperm heads on the latter? Or are you claiming that no profiles would even have been obtainable, let alone able to be compared and matched with another? That would be quite an accusation, wouldn't it?

Love,

Caz
X

[Victor]

Another excellent scientific resource about the failings of LCN to elicit profiles correctly.

http://www.cstl.nist.gov/biotech/str...op_May2006.pdf

Hi all,
Unfortunately for Reg, he's wrong again - it's a presentation summary, but without the associated talk and notes. Also it's a discussion of the issues faced with DNA testing and statistical analysis of an array of published results, not at all "about the failings of LCN to elicit profiles correctly".

Check out slide 5 on page 9. I quote "LCN.....May not be able to associate DNA profile with bloodstain or other visual evidence".

And slide 3 on page 10 "Tissue source cannot be determined".

First slide entitled "Challenges of LCN" and refers solely to the problem of not knowing the source of the DNA discovered, ie., JH's DNA was on the hanky but it might be blood, or nasal skin cells, or mucous, and LCN can't determine the difference.

So how could Whitaker in Hanratty(2002) suggest that the DNA was from sperm?

Already addressed this in a previous post - they isolated sperm heads and tested for sperm DNA only.

If the less sensitive techniques used in 1995 proved inconclusive then considering the evidence was nigh on forty years old and with all the degredation that has taken place this makes the DNA evidence in Hanratty next to useless.

Regards
The abusive bully.

What degredation? 4,000+ year old mummies can contain viable DNA, so what's a trifling 40 or 50 years?

Two quotes from the other link Reg posted...
"DNA is an inherently stable molecule and requires something to destroy or degrade it; examples are action by light, cellular enzymes, or bacteria."
"DNA has been extracted from mummies (albeit with mixed success), and profiles are routinely obtained in Medical Genetics from blood spots on card stored at room temperature that are at least 40 years old"

He's proving himself wrong.

KR,
Vic.

[Victor]

How would you reconcile the matching profiles apparently obtained from both hankie and knickers, if it wasn't Hanratty's DNA?

Nice question - maybe Reg thinks that some mysterious LabTech has identical STR Loci as Hanratty (odds of 1 in several billions against) and his DNA managed to get onto both samples - maybe he masterbated over the knicker fragment too.

Yay for mysterious w*nkers!

[reg1965]

Already addressed this in a previous post - they isolated sperm heads and tested for sperm DNA only.

Please supply the reference to the source of this revelation.

ps you spelt masturbated wrong. Talk about w**k*rs!

[jimarilyn]

Nice question - maybe Reg thinks that some mysterious LabTech has identical STR Loci as Hanratty (odds of 1 in several billions against) and his DNA managed to get onto both samples - maybe he masterbated over the knicker fragment too.

Yay for mysterious w*nkers!

You reveal your true colours by this post Victor.
And you have the nerve to call (using your favourite word) certain posts "bovine excrement" or "sycophantic excrement".
You sound like a sad 12 year old schoolboy.

Also, judging from some of your mistakes-ridden posts on the main thread I'm beginning to wonder if you've ever read any of the 7 books about the A6 murder.

[jimarilyn]

But it's ok anyway, because the DNA findings in this case served to corroborate the other evidence that convinced the original jury.

I'd be very interested to hear just what this evidence was.
I hope to GOD that none of those eleven men were called upon for jury service again.