A6 Murder DNA evidence

[NickB]

well if dna does not proves is guilt it cant prove his innocence

I think all they are hoping for is a result that does not necessarily point to Hanratty.

If a further test continues to indicate Hanratty’s guilt it will be rejected, but if it is inconclusive it will be accepted and hailed as a triumph.

[nugnug]

well if dna does not proves is guilt it cant prove his innocence

[Victor]

So his game plan was for the DNA result to be presented at the appeal court. Yet when the case was referred back to the appeal court, the defence tried to get it not to consider the DNA result on the grounds that by doing so would exceed its role as a Court of review (2002 Appeal - point 101).

Hi Nick,

But the objection to the evidence was specific, it was not additional information to prove that the previous judgment was wrong.

Of course it could easily be argued that since the results are allegedly so suspect and LCN can't be used to exonerate anyone, then even if the LCN result showed it was someone else, that wouldn't be evidence that Hanratty was innocent in Woffinden's eyes! Therefore I've no idea why he is pushing for further testing - it makes no sense.

KR,
Vic.

[NickB]

However, I have no doubt that when the work has been properly concluded, these scientific tests, too, will demonstrate that he had nothing to do with this crime."

And the following sentence was:
"The Commission will, in due course, refer the case back to the appeal court, and Hanratty's conviction will be quashed.”

So his game plan was for the DNA result to be presented at the appeal court. Yet when the case was referred back to the appeal court, the defence tried to get it not to consider the DNA result on the grounds that by doing so would exceed its role as a Court of review (2002 Appeal - point 101).

[RonIpstone]

In March 1998 Bob Woffinden wrote (in the Daily Mail of all places) as follows:

"Finally, one must look at the scientific exhibits. In 1991, we asked the forensic science laboratories whether there were any surviving exhibits.

We were shown a small fragment of material from Valerie Storie's underwear and immediately asked whether it could be subjected to analysis using contemporary DNA techniques.

The Home Office originally refused this request, but the work, which is still in progress, was finally undertaken by the Criminal Cases Review Commission. It is a very small sample of material, and the work is very intricate.

However, I have no doubt that when the work has been properly concluded, these scientific tests, too, will demonstrate that he had nothing to do with this crime. "

Ron
(Justice for all)

[jimarilyn]

Hi nugnug
Good to see that you are championing the innocence of Luke Mitchell.
As for your ?. Ask the FSS. Be quick before they are wound up as being bankrupt.

Derrick

Hi Derrick,

Could that be the "Falsification of Suspicious Specimens" organisation ?

[Derrick]

is this a full 10 point dna match or a part match to him

Hi nugnug
Good to see that you are championing the innocence of Luke Mitchell.
As for your ?. Ask the FSS. Be quick before they are wound up as being bankrupt.

Derrick

[Victor]

is this a full 10 point dna match or a part match to him

Hi nugnug,

It could even be 13 - with 2 alleles at each.

Apparently Woffinden has the full results but is being a bit quiet about them.

The hanky was less certain than the knicker fragment according to the judgment.

KR,
Vic.

[nugnug]

is this a full 10 point dna match or a part match to him

[Victor]

Perhaps you forgot to insert the following in your quote which is between your sections from the article:

Hi Derrick,

I forgot nothing, your comments take the debate further and have nothing to do with Norma's statement that DNA degrades within a couple of months.

It would be foolish for anyone to suggest otherwise wouldn't it?

Yes, standard storage for the DNA database employs freezing as that method maximises maintaining the integrity of the sample. That doesn't mean that non-frozen samples should be just thrown out, as the "blood spots on card stored at room temperature that are at least 40 years old" comment demonstrates.

Courts of law are not the place to determine the validity of scientific techniques for forensic purposes. These should be agreed by those best placed to determine the validity of scientific techniques, that is scientists performing peer review and gaining agreement from empirical experimentation.

That is a prize quote - one that I wholeheartedly agree with - and one that recommends that testing on samples such as Valerie's underwear continue.

KR,
Vic.

[Derrick]

How about the comments from the Forensic Institute - an anti-LCN group.

From http://www.theforensicinstitute.com/...tement%202.pdf

Dr Whitaker’s proffered explanation was that the most rational explanation for such failure was the degradation of the frozen DNA. This is simply scientifically unacceptable. 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.

KR,
Vic.

Hi Victor

Perhaps you forgot to insert the following in your quote which is between your sections from the article:

These samples were pure extracts of DNA stored frozen in the dark. Freezing is the most widely used method of biological preservation and is used in every laboratory in the world (including the FSS to store the DNA samples for the National DNA Database).

It would be foolish for anyone to suggest otherwise wouldn't it?

As for profiles from blood spots then there would have to be enough quantified DNA to gain a reliable profile. It is only possible with SGM+ and could not have be done with LCN in 2006 as the FSS only started quantifying LCN in late 2009.

How about these other comments from the same article:

It is self-evidently not the case that the paper represents as stated by Dr Gill a, “global consensus view” of anything, other than the proposal for, “a period of time for feedback and reflection by the scientific community”.
The paper supports my contention about the lack of acceptance of the validity for forensic use of LCN within the scientific community.
LCN merits only about a quarter of one page in an 11-page article. The recommendation merely states that the effects of analysing low amounts of DNA (drop-in and drop-out) should be taken into consideration; a position with which I agree. It does not specify how.
Our contention is that mixture analysis requires specific validation when 34-cycle techniques, or any other method outwith the conventional SGM+ validated range, are used (whatever they may be called). It is not sufficient for positive assertions to be made about a system without the appropriate experimental support.
Unless it is accepted by the scientific community that mixtures identified by 34-cycle amplification with no quantitation of starting amounts of DNA can be reliably interpreted, then the paper’s recommendations and the use of such techniques, such as they are, must await the necessary experimental work to establish the reliability of the profiles as a prerequisite for interpreting their meaning.

This was in 2006 some 8 years after the LCN tests in Hanratty and yet still no acceptance by the wider scientific community of LCN.

Even Gill accepts that LCN vaildation, for forensic use, has not be achieved. So in Hanratty the LCN technique was invaild according to it's chief developer.

Even in 2009, after Reed, that had not happened, although quantitation by the FSS had just been brought online, mixture interpretation has not been validated. We are still waiting and the reason is that it will never happen. You cannot push nature beyond what it can naturally give up and expect to gain reliable insight.

Courts of law are not the place to determine the validity of scientific techniques for forensic purposes. These should be agreed by those best placed to determine the validity of scientific techniques, that is scientists performing peer review and gaining agreement from empirical experimentation.

Derrick

[Victor]

I have checked out this stuff on Egyptian mummies and it is not a good analogy.DNA can in fact disappear quite rapidly from pieces of cloth -[as quickly as a few months] -that have not been stored in optimum conditions and I can quickly post from a thread with examples of this,if you like.However,The DNA held in bones is of a different order in terms of endurance,hence the DNA found in mummies can last thousands of years.

How about the comments from the Forensic Institute - an anti-LCN group.

From http://www.theforensicinstitute.com/...tement%202.pdf

Dr Whitaker’s proffered explanation was that the most rational explanation for such failure was the degradation of the frozen DNA. This is simply scientifically unacceptable. 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.

KR,
Vic.

[jason_c]

"Harsh...why?
Ron doesn't fink that the original evidence was enough to convict.
Ron confesses to knowing nothing about DNA.
Ron uses words like sensible, right thinking etc to describe those like him who accept the DNA evidence and the Court of Appeals decision.

Ron is a hypocrite for putting forward a counter argument that is formed entirely of points the he doesn't even know about (DNA) or agree with (strong case).

Harsh. I was just being fair, given Ron's stance"

Derrick

We are having take expert testimoney at face value to a certain extent. I dont know a whole lot about DNA and i suspect many on here dont either. That doesnt make me us hypocrites in the slightest.

[Natalie Severn]

Headline today in The Times KEEF !

I don"t usually buy Murdoch"s paper,The Times but was keen to know what Keith Richards had to say about Mick---who he calls "Her Majesty,Brenda"!
The big surprise was their headline KEEF!
Like Rod Stewart and Hanratty ,Keith often says fings for things and finking for thinking,and yes--- he answers to Keef!
Ronnie Wood takes the biscuit though as he goes the whole hog with the "with =wiv"," through =fru" pronunciation and it is how he always speaks.He was born not long after Hanratty and hails from almost the same neck of the woods.Mick on the other hand in the recent film,"Shine a Light" speaks with a standard London accent some of the time but "wiv his mates" he too uses the Cockney version while relaxing off stage.Thats how Alphon used speech ,it depended on his audience!

[Natalie Severn]

Victor,
I have checked out this stuff on Egyptian mummies and it is not a good analogy.DNA can in fact disappear quite rapidly from pieces of cloth -[as quickly as a few months] -that have not been stored in optimum conditions and I can quickly post from a thread with examples of this,if you like.However,The DNA held in bones is of a different order in terms of endurance,hence the DNA found in mummies can last thousands of years.