A6 Murder DNA evidence

[reg1965]

Graham 27th Sept 08:

<< When the results of the DNA were first publicised I was amazed, astonished and, frankly, sceptical. However, I have never, ever, not to this day, the other place notwithstanding, seen any good reason to doubt the results. DNA, like fingerprints, is not a matter of personal opinion - it is fact, scientific fact. To doubt it is to doubt the very basis of scientific criminal investigation in the 21st century, something which I am not prepared to do. Simple as that. >>

But it's NOT that simple!

Graham mentions both DNA and fingerprints but it is important to underline the fact that your DNA travels to places that you have never been. For your fingerprints to end up elsewhere requires a far more sophisticated transit mechanism that just moving through the air, like being planted. Even so it should be pointed out that with forensic evidence such as DNA it is not the question of why it is there but how did it get there that should in the uppermost of concern for criminal investigations.

It's important to keep in mind the essential distinction, which is not being made much on either thread (and certainly not by posters believing Hanratty to be guilty beyond doubt), between accepted DNA testing of decent sized samples, and the highly controversial new technique known as LCN (Low Copy Number) testing. This can take an infinitessimal particle of DNA and 'clone' it to get a pattern. The dangers should be obvious even to the uninitiated and unscientific; yet this is the technique used in the final 2002 appeal!

I have mentioned this on numerous occasions regarding the inconclusive tests of 1995 which would have only produced a profile from an acceptable amount of DNA. So called stochastic effects become very real when dealing with very low amounts of initial DNA. Allelic drop-in and drop-out occur uncontrollably and lead to misidentification of profiles especially at such low RFU levels.

If the judge in the final Appeal had been able to read this 2008 review back in 2002, I doubt he too would have thought the evidence safe. As it was he was 'blinded by science', as so many seem to be on here.

At paragraph 65 in the Omagh Bombing judgment Justice Weir quotes from Lord Chief Justice Lord Lowry from R vs Steenson and Others (1986) "Justice 'according to law' demands proper evidence. By that we mean not merely evidence which might be true and to a considerable extent probably is true, but, as the learned trial judge put it, "evidence which is so convincing in truth and manifestly reliable that it reaches the standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt.". This was in Northern Ireland and I am not sure it pertains to law in England and Wales but it precedes Hanratty by some 16 years yet the judges in Hanratty swallowed the DNA evidence hook line and sinker; this was due to the inadequate amount of expert defence witnesses in DNA at that time, as opposed to in Hoey in 2007.

By the way I can't find the ref now, but Michael Hanratty is down as saying that the panties or piece of panty and other pieces of evidence were not only all dumped into the same box or case each day for carrying back and forth to court, but they were freely handed by the usher in charge of them to various witnesses (and to Hanratty himself presumably, inc his handkerchief), and handled by them indiscriminately. Draw your own conclusions!

See BBC Horizon (2002) transcript at:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/2001/a6murdertrans.shtml

Just search for Michael Hanratty. His quote is about the trial when the knicker fragment wasn't shown. Although at the commital at Ampthill no one knows who handled what. (P115 Appeal Court Ruling)

Regards
Reg

[Sara]

The LNC Workshop Group series of papers is very interesting! (USA scientists)

I can't pretend to follow all the science, but just reading their concluding pages for each report is instructive

http://tinyurl.com/7ph3nl

[reg1965]

Hi All
Here is a short paper on LCN by Dr Bruce Budowle, Senior Scientist at the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Quantico, Virginia.

I don't know what happened to the illustrations at the end!

http://www.promega.com/geneticidproc/ussymp12proc/contents/budowle.pdf

Don't try telling me that he is biased!

Reg

[Victor]

Hi all,
I hope you all had a great xmas and new year.

Here you state without doubt that the semen DNA evidence was extracted by testing for DNA from sperm heads only.

Here you just go back to the beginning again.

SO:-

Nowhere in the linked article does it state that the DNA evidence in Hanratty was elicited using a sperm only technique. It doesn't mention anything about the Hanratty case at all.
Nowhere in the Appeal ruling is it mentioned either. That would mean 2 different techniques where used, this spermy DNA thing for Storie's knicker fragment and something else for Hanrattys snot rag.

So where did you get the information from about it being used in Hanratty or did you just make it up?

Likewise, nowhere in any article does it say definitively that the sperm seperation technique wasn't used. But it does say "[everybody] seemed to accept that the contamination would have to be semen" in the judgment, which strongly implies it was used. Unless you can offer an alternative explanation for Dr Evison (seeming to) accept that?

We know it was LCN that was used anyway because Whitaker told BBC's Horizon programme that the samples were subjected to 34 PCR amplification cycles, pure LCN as can be read in the transcript of the programme found here.

And does he say how the sample was prepared before the 34 cycles?

KR,
Vic.

[Victor]

In fact some of the comments in a report regarding the Armagh case are so pertinent they bear repeating; this concerns Low Copy Number (LCN) DNA (bold is my own emphasis)


<< It allows DNA profiles to be uncovered even when there is only a tiny amount of DNA present, sometimes as small as a millionth the size of a grain of salt.

Yes, I seem to recall 7 cells is sufficient.

"Low Copy Number tests are much more prone to flexible interpretation, than with the conventional tests.

Slightly misleading, but generally true. LCN is much more sensitive so the signal to noise ratiio is higher which makes interpretation more complex.

"Because of its great sensitivity, there are much greater concerns about the persistence of DNA and its ability to be transferred from one article to another. It's just too easy for contamination to occur, or for DNA to have become associated with an article through very innocent, very old contact."

Transference and persistence are issues with any DNA test, the more sensitive it is, the more of an effect contamination can have.

How can any verdict based entirely on this technique be regarded as relaiable, let alone infallible?

This implies: No test is perfect and no matter how much development takes place it never will be, therefore abandon all scientific research.

Why are you still using that computer? It doesn't always give you the right results, or even the right web pages all the time, so it's fatally flawed. Right?

KR,
Vic.

[Victor]

Right, back to topic: one point which has been debated endlessly is that there was no other DNA on the fragment of panty used in the final appeal tests than 'Hanrratty's'. I don't think this means much, frankly.

Other than it indicates that contamination DID NOT happen.

Posts 1770 ff (main thead) discuss this with some posters pouring scorn on the idea of an 'impotent rapist'.

That's because of the "visible semen stain" which was blood typed.

There was reportedly DNA from two men on the original sample of panty, but only from one on the fragment finally tested. The fragment was so infinitessimal - it had to be cloned over and over to get any 'pattern' - that there is imo no GUARANTEE that it didn't come from cross-contamination. The abscence of any '3rd party' DNA on the final or even the original one fragment is therefore not conclusive. Just because the judge dismissed the possibility, does NOT mean we are obliged to do so. He used the handkerchief as part of his reasoning.

That's very exaggerated and completely misunderstands the technique and what the judgment says, the hanky is referred to solely in the context of 'The same would have to be true for the hanky'.

But the handkerchief is almost certainly a red herring - it's imo so obviously a plant, with the gun and THREE!! BOXES of ammo - that it can be discounted as evidence of Hanratty's involvement, on its own.

Evidence please. If it's so obvious then you've got some evidence to back up this OPINION.

DNA forensics are the new shibboleth of science, almost impossible to counter by the defence and certainly impossible to follow by a jury (or most judges!). Only in the UK are they given such credence, with juries heavily influenced by forensics programmes on TV, which are FICTION, to see DNA evidence as infallible.

Not forgetting New Zealand and the Netherlands which both also allow LCN results as permissible evidence.

I fail to see how anyone who bears these matteers in mind can think that Hanratty's guilt is cut and dried, proven beyond doubt. The unreliability of DNA evidence (and the fact it rests entirely on INTERPRETATION) MUST put his guilt in doubt for any open-minded person, even if it doesn't prove his innocence.

All scientific results rely on INTERPRETATION. Every single result. Sometimes that interpretation is done by a computer, but someone had to program the computer to INTERPRET those results.

Your last sentence is so tautological I'm staggered, it basically says "Every open-minded person agrees with me. I am the epitome of open-mindedness and if you don't agree then you're closed-minded". Reminds me of Animal Farm 'Everyone is equal, some are just more equal than others'

KR,
Vic.

[Victor]

It's important to keep in mind the essential distinction, which is not being made much on either thread (and certainly not by posters believing Hanratty to be guilty beyond doubt), between accepted DNA testing of decent sized samples, and the highly controversial new technique known as LCN (Low Copy Number) testing. This can take an infinitessimal particle of DNA and 'clone' it to get a pattern. The dangers should be obvious even to the uninitiated and unscientific; yet this is the technique used in the final 2002 appeal!

Hi Sara,
This is the same argument that is used whenever a technique is introduced - just like fingerprints. There is not, and never has been, conclusive proof that no two individuals have the same fingerprints. And yet the "establishment" still use them.

The phrase "infinitesimal particle of DNA" is misleading. DNA is a polymeric molecule, not a particle; isn't infinitesimal, it's of finite size (although very small); the "cloning" happens billions of times every day in your own body and everyone else's too; and most significantly is a legally accepted technique.

The Forensic Institute itself has come out against the technique as a tool of evidence - and this is using contemporary DNA fragments, let alone old and possibly degraded or contaminated fragments.

Yep, and they investigated the possibility of degradation and contamination and eliminated both.

I seriously fail to see how anyone who has read this damning 'review of the Review', itself by forensic scientists, can imagine that the LCN verdict on the panty fragment can be considered safe. (If indeed it even was from the panty!)

Wow, so the scientists tasked with providing expert opinions on molecules so small they can't be seen with the naked eye are so incompetent they can't even recognise a couple of inches of material

If the judge in the final Appeal had been able to read this 2008 review back in 2002, I doubt he too would have thought the evidence safe. As it was he was 'blinded by science', as so many seem to be on here.

Is that an admission that you've been "blinded by science"?

Since the last fragment of this purported piece of 'evidence' was destroyed in an attempt at obtaining the supposed DNA in 2002, we shall never know 'beyond doubt' and this essential aspect of the case will imo always be debatable

Only if you can accept that somehow the alleles detected were a perfect match for Hanratty in the right order... that's beyond doubt for me.

By the way I can't find the ref now, but Michael Hanratty is down as saying that the panties or piece of panty and other pieces of evidence were not only all dumped into the same box or case each day for carrying back and forth to court, but they were freely handed by the usher in charge of them to various witnesses (and to Hanratty himself presumably, inc his handkerchief), and handled by them indiscriminately. Draw your own conclusions!

Yes, the large remainder of the knickers were not treated in a DNA free environment or manner, but the fragment tested was cut out beforehand. So categorically, Hanratty had no access to the knicker fragment and could not have contaminated it.

KR,
Vic.

[Victor]

The actual reliability of DNA testing of such incredibly minute particles is not generally accepted, see again:

http://www.nacdl.org/public.nsf/0/6285f6867724e1e685257124006f9177

and related articles.

Hi Sara,

I think that article is what's generally classified as scaremongering.

I didn't find a single reference to the proportion of "wrong" results compared to the number of correct ones.

The repeated references to "bad analysts", "contamination" apply equally to virtually every technique including SGM+, fingerprinting, and basic evidence collection ("raids", "busts" where you can have planted evidence).

KR,
Vic.

[Victor]

Without a full transcript of the hearing it is not clear how sample profiles of Storie or Gregsten were obtained or whether it was just assumed that they would be there. In the case of Gregsten it is only considered as being attributed to him rather than definitely from him.

Hi Reg,

"only"? Nowhere does it say it was not definitely from him, after it had been identified it would naturally be considered as attributed to him.

KR,
Vic.

[Victor]

Graham mentions both DNA and fingerprints but it is important to underline the fact that your DNA travels to places that you have never been. For your fingerprints to end up elsewhere requires a far more sophisticated transit mechanism that just moving through the air, like being planted. Even so it should be pointed out that with forensic evidence such as DNA it is not the question of why it is there but how did it get there that should in the uppermost of concern for criminal investigations.

Come off it Reg get some perspective, DNA can't magically appear on the other side of the world, it can't jump through walls or teleport itself about, what it does do is shed from your body as skin cells (and hair, etc.)

By that we mean not merely evidence which might be true and to a considerable extent probably is true, but, as the learned trial judge put it, "evidence which is so convincing in truth and manifestly reliable that it reaches the standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt.".

Which is why LCN results are given in the form 1 chance in billions, which is "beyond reasonable doubt".

His quote is about the trial when the knicker fragment wasn't shown. Although at the commital at Ampthill no one knows who handled what. (P115 Appeal Court Ruling)

Regards
Reg

Apart from their DNA not showing up on the hanky... that indicates that contamination by direct transfer in that case is non-existant.

KR,
Vic.

[Victor]

I too would like to know what evidence Caz thinks convinced the jury. For the life of me I have been struggling with this one for years. Nothing about the evidence convinces me.

How about:-

1. VS identification.
2. JH poor performance in the witness box
3. JH admitting he lied - the changing alibis
4. JH terrible character (criminal record, incarceration history, bad conduct whilst incarcerated)

KR,
Vic

[reg1965]

Apart from their DNA not showing up on the hanky... that indicates that contamination by direct transfer in that case is non-existant.

The respondents claimed that the contamination, if it ocurred, must have been semen. So the hanky could not have been the source of contamination, because, again according to the respondent, it was said to only contain a mucusy substance.

As has been put on numerous occasions, here and elsewhere, the hanky was Hanratty's, he said so in court. So his DNA would be expected to be on it.

Nobody knows the full lifecycle of the exhibits so for the court of appeal to conclude in summary that contamination was nothing more than theoretically possible is playing fast and loose with the known facts.

[reg1965]

Dr Dan Krane who produced a statement in evidence in the Omagh Bombings appeal (2007) stated on page 11 of his report that:-

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

In Hanratty this continuity of record keeping is not known.

[Victor]

The respondents claimed that the contamination, if it ocurred, must have been semen.

And this was seemingly accepted by all.

So the hanky could not have been the source of contamination, because, again according to the respondent, it was said to only contain a mucusy substance.

So the hanky couldn't have contaminated the knicker fragment because there was no semen on it. OK.

As has been put on numerous occasions, here and elsewhere, the hanky was Hanratty's, he said so in court. So his DNA would be expected to be on it.

Conveniently ignoring how the hanky got wrapped round the gun in the first place presumably by the shadowy, mysterious conspirators...

Nobody knows the full lifecycle of the exhibits so for the court of appeal to conclude in summary that contamination was nothing more than theoretically possible is playing fast and loose with the known facts.

Well the full lifecycle of the knickers is known if you are willing to accept that from the excision and blood-typing and packing away until it was found it was "known", albeit locked away unobserved in cellophane which in turn was in a brown envelope.

If it was contaminated then you'd detect the contamination - surely that's obvious. No contamination detected is equivalent to uncontaminated.

KR,
Vic.

[reg1965]

Well the full lifecycle of the knickers is known if you are willing to accept that from the excision and blood-typing and packing away until it was found it was "known", albeit locked away unobserved in cellophane which in turn was in a brown envelope.

If it was contaminated then you'd detect the contamination - surely that's obvious. No contamination detected is equivalent to uncontaminated.

No. The Complete lifecycle of the knickers is not known. If you want to accept a partial lifecycle as being complete then...well...what can one say?
Cellophane or paper envelopes are not suitable for the storage of samples that are to be tested for DNA. Not today and certainly not 40 odd years ago. Samples should be frozen.

It is not possible to detect where DNA came from or when it came in contact with a particular surface by any transfer method using any DNA testing technique. So therefore contamination is not purely isolated to blank controls. It may have been transferred to the sample exhibit before the lab even sees it or after the blank has been set up. It could even be in the reagent used.

This does not even take into account stochastic effects that occur unpredictably when the amount of template is below the stochastic threshold. This is around 125pg of original template DNA. LCN is always used when template levels are lower than this for obvious reasons.