a6 murder

[JamesDean]

Hello James
I didn't respond to your post 1953 because I have pointed out to you on many occasions that there are two aspects to the DNA evidence and BOTH have to be dealt with TOGETHER. As I have said to you many times before you are banging away at one of the strands and ignoring the other.
You are trying to find ingenious ways of finding that the original rapists DNA wasn't present whilst ignoring the distribution.
I repeat that the judges found that the possibility of BOTH aspects occuring by chance,ON TWO SEPARATE PIECES OF FABRIC are "beyond belief" and any reasonable person would have to agree with them!!!!
All the best
johnl

Hello johnl

But if the DNA test gave a false match, as can happen with LCN, how do you identify the rapist? The distribution argument is an irrelevance you have introduced to cloud the picture.

Post #1953 clearly shows that a match was achieved in a test carried out by Dr John Whitaker in 2006 that predicted a probability of 77 million to 1 that nobody but the suspect in the case documented was the source of the semen being tested. This was subsequently shown to be a false match and highlights the fact that the LCN technique is not infallible and we cannot rely on the results. It doesn't do what it says on the tin!

Regards
James

[johnl]

Hello johnl

But if the DNA test gave a false match, as can happen with LCN, how do you identify the rapist? The distribution argument is an irrelevance you have introduced to cloud the picture.

Post #1953 clearly shows that a match was achieved in a test carried out by Dr John Whitaker in 2006 that predicted a probability of 77 million to 1 that nobody but the suspect in the case documented was the source of the semen being tested. This was subsequently shown to be a false match and highlights the fact that the LCN technique is not infallible and we cannot rely on the results.

Regards
James

Hello James
Your tactic is that when you are cornered on one point (the crotch of the knickers) you jump to another point (LCN) and have to be cornered all over again, after lots of posts; and then when you are cornered on that point you jump again!
All the best
Johnl

[Victor]

Hello johnl

But if the DNA test gave a false match, as can happen with LCN, how do you identify the rapist? The distribution argument is an irrelevance you have introduced to cloud the picture.

No it didn't, it didn't match!

Post #1953 clearly shows that a match was achieved in a test carried out by Dr John Whitaker in 2006 that predicted a probability of 77 million to 1 that nobody but the suspect in the case documented was the source of the semen being tested. This was subsequently shown to be a false match and highlights the fact that the LCN technique is not infallible and we cannot rely on the results. It doesn't do what it says on the tin!

Regards
James

There is no false match! There's the absense of an exact match.

The quote in post #1953 clearly says that cross-contamination occurred when the boys body was placed onto the bathroom mat where there were genuine semen stains, and that's about it really. I freely admit that LCN is so very powerful that it can detect minute amounts of DNA and that all routes of contamination have to be examined.

It still does not contradict or cast any doubt onto this:-
"Accordingly, we reject the evidence of Dr Evison where it is in conflict with the additional evidence of the respondents, agreeing as we do with the submission made by Mr Sweeney that the DNA evidence standing alone is certain proof of James Hanratty's guilt. "

[JamesDean]

Hello James
Your tactic is that when you are cornered on one point (the crotch of the knickers) you jump to another point (LCN) and have to be cornered all over again, after lots of posts; and then when you are cornered on that point you jump again!
All the best
Johnl

I simply respond to the points you raise so if we seem to be jumping around it's you who is instigating it.

We are running several issues in parallel here and it can seem confusing if you cannot differentiate and separate the issues from each other. That LCN may have given a false match is entirely a separate argument from whether the fragment ever had the rapist's DNA on it or had been contaminated in some way from the Hanratty exhibits. If the LCN was unreliable then all else is irrelevant in terms of the conclusion drawn from the DNA evidence.

Regards
James

[johnl]

DNA evidence

Hello Jame
I think if you look back through our posts that it is YOU putting forward the hare-brained scenarios such as having the knicker legs around the waist and I have been refuting them.
Tell me, when did WE last have posts on LCN?
All the best
johnl

[JamesDean]

No it didn't, it didn't match!

I was talking about the Hanratty test but I think your comment is re post #1953 ?

It still does not contradict or cast any doubt onto this:-
"Accordingly, we reject the evidence of Dr Evison where it is in conflict with the additional evidence of the respondents, agreeing as we do with the submission made by Mr Sweeney that the DNA evidence standing alone is certain proof of James Hanratty's guilt. "

It does cast doubt on the conclusion drawn in the appeal if LCN is shown to be unreliable.

Regards
James

[JamesDean]

Hello Jame
Tell me, when did WE last have posts on LCN?
All the best
johnl

Hello johnl

I have mentioned LCN innumerable times because it is an important point to get across ... that LCN is not infallible. If it is not infallible now then consider whether it is right to rely on it being concrete prooof of anything from 10 years ago. In 1997 it was a technique that was 'in development' and they still don't seem to have ironed out the wrinkles.

That you don't join in the LCN debate is your choice and not evidence of me jumping from subject to subject. I can only respond to the posts that you make.

You rely too heavily on the text of the judgment and are determined to see everything from that perspective. You are totally opposed to any possibility that the judgment came to the wrong conclusion.

I have never said that Hanratty couldn't be the A6 killer. I am simply thinking outside the box that you seem squarely inside.

Regards
James

[reg1965]

Hello James
I don't think you realise how a trial works. The prosecution presents facts and has to substantiate EACH ONE with backing evidence.
For instance " This is the gun that was used" They have to produce the gun, the bullets from the victim and a ballistics expert to link the two.
"JH was seen in Avondale Crescent". They have to produce witnesses to that effect.
"The rapists blood group was O secretor". They have to produce evidence to support this, what other piece of evidence supports this except the crotch of the knickers?
All the best
johnl

(my enboldening)

I don't think anyone saw JH in Avondale Crescent.
Blackhall and Skillett saw the car in Eastern Avenue and Trower in Redbridge Lane. This is supposing that the car was ever there at all of course!

Reg

[johnl]

DNA evidence

Hello johnl

I have mentioned LCN innumerable times because it is an important point to get across ... that LCN is not infallible. If it is not infallible now then consider whether it is right to rely on it being concrete prooof of anything from 10 years ago. In 1997 it was a technique that was 'in development' and they still don't seem to have ironed out the wrinkles.

That you don't join in the LCN debate is your choice and not evidence of me jumping from subject to subject. I can only respond to the posts that you make.

You rely too heavily on the text of the judgment and are determined to see everything from that perspective. You are totally opposed to any possibility that the judgment came to the wrong conclusion.

I have never said that Hanratty couldn't be the A6 killer. I am simply thinking outside the box that you seem squarely inside.

Regards
James

I think the operative word in my last post was WE, that's why itis in capitals.
I refer you to your post to me No 1815
johnl

[Victor]

I was talking about the Hanratty test but I think your comment is re post #1953 ?

It does cast doubt on the conclusion drawn in the appeal if LCN is shown to be unreliable.

Regards
James

Hi James,

This discussion seems to be weaving backwards and forwards. I will agree that IF you can discredit LCN as a technique then you can throw doubt on the conclusion that James Hanratty is a murdering rapist.

I looked through the evidence quoted in post #1953 and in response to this "Interesting! Are you still convinced that the Hanratty DNA test was conclusive?", my answer is a resounding YES!

And here goes my reasoning...
The case you cited clearly shows an early conclusion that a semen sample discovered on the body belonged to the suspect with a close but not exact match, and the inference therefore is that a sexual crime took place. The eventual outcome was that the semen was from the suspect but was transferred by a contamination event (the bathroom mat) and not from a sexual attack. This is again a problem with the interpretation of the results, not a problem with the technique.

Now, the problem with the technique is... what is happening is comparable to photocopying, and what you are copying is comparable to a very, very large book. Sometimes with photocopying errors crop in and the odd letter will be distorted so an "o" with a bit of dust could look like a "p" or a "q" or with a bit missing a "c" - and a similar sort of thing happens with LCN. So according to your citation what they do is "every stage of LCN analysis is repeated twice to ensure that results are not distorted" and in total they do the copying 34 times.

Have you seen a letter that has been photocopied (well 2 copies taken from it and the best one used), then the copy photocopied - again using the best of 2, then the best of these 2 copies copied, etc. 34 times over? It looks a bit smudged and discoloured, but is still generally readable. This is what LCN is.

Now the result is compared to a known profile and a %age match is used to say how close they are and it isn't going to be 100% but very near to it, and this in turn is used to give the 1 in 77 million answer.

Right so the problem in a nutshell is... You take "War and Peace" and photocopy it as above...and what you end up with is essentially "War and Peace" with some unreadable words - you don't end up with "Lord of the Rings" or "Pride and Predudice". To convert the theoretical "VS Rapist" into JH that is what you'd need to do.

[JamesDean]

I looked through the evidence quoted in post #1953 and in response to this "Interesting! Are you still convinced that the Hanratty DNA test was conclusive?", my answer is a resounding YES!

And here goes my reasoning...
The case you cited clearly shows an early conclusion that a semen sample discovered on the body belonged to the suspect with a close but not exact match, and the inference therefore is that a sexual crime took place. The eventual outcome was that the semen was from the suspect but was transferred by a contamination event (the bathroom mat) and not from a sexual attack. This is again a problem with the interpretation of the results, not a problem with the technique.

Hi Victor

This is the relevant extract from post #1953 re the first DNA test ...

The LCN technique is a revolutionary one that has enabled scientists and law enforcers around the world to revisit and solve crimes committed decades ago.

In DNA analysis, small traces of DNA found in bodily fluids, fingerprints and human tissue are ‘‘amplified’’ to the point where a match can be established with a suspect.

In the conventional method, ‘‘amplification’’ of a sample’s DNA characteristics takes place 28 times.

With Whitaker’s LCN technique, the process occurs 34 times.

According to Whitaker, every stage of LCN analysis is repeated twice to ensure that results are not distorted. It is a painstaking process and his analysis of the semen found on Holohan’s body would have taken some time.

Whitaker’s first results led the scientist to conclude that the possibility that the semen could have belonged to anyone other than O’Donoghue was one in 77million.

Had there been no other sample available to conduct a second test then I am assuming that the result of the first test would have been "... that the DNA evidence standing alone is certain proof of O’Donoghue's guilt. "

The defence could have argued contamination, as was the case, but maybe that argument would have been dismissed as it has been in the Hanratty case. Without the second sample from the bathroom I'm sure that O’Donoghue would have been found guilty of sexual assault. There was no second sample in the Hanratty case ... just the tiny fragment!

Regards
James

[jimarilyn]

What used to be a fascinating thread

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.... ...........


Watch out for the rottweilers, JamesDean, don't let them have the last word.

[JIMBOW]

Neville and Griffin's dairy

This is specifically for Steve:-

You wouldn't, by chance, have, amongst your wide catalogue of photos, one of Neville and Griffin's dairy near Slough (where they stopped to buy milk from a vending machine and nobody had a tanner?).

It's just that I find these modern-day pics of the scenes of interest ... well, fascinating really!!

Jim

[JamesDean]

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz...............

The DNA result seems to be irrelevant then. Hanratty did it ... no question ... end of thread! Yes it's bloody boring and it's boring me stupid having to repeat the same facts over and over. The DNA test was not conclusive.

Now ... back to the cornfield ...

[JamesDean]

Watch out for the rottweilers, JamesDean, don't let them have the last word.

I can't be bothered arguing with them any more.

Caz is too nice to be a rottweiler!

Regards
James