a6 murder

[jimarilyn]

Ca(r)nal knowledge on the whole is supposed to be very dirty, Moriarty my dear fellow.

Eh, less of the Moriarty, Sherley ! I've got a cousin by that name.......and he's an Evertonian to boot ! He's seen the doc and he's hoping to make a full recovery. Incidentally, I recenty re-visited the series of 14 movies (boxed-set from Smugglers-Bay) which starred Basil (not Acott) Rathbone and Nigel Bruce as SH and DrW. Some absoute gems in there. It was a nice touch I thought the Rathbone/Baker Street connection. Anyone know if Rathbones Bakery is still in existence ?

[SteveS]

Eh, less of the Moriarty, Sherley ! I've got a cousin by that name.......and he's an Evertonian to boot ! He's seen the doc and he's hoping to make a full recovery. Incidentally, I recenty re-visited the series of 14 movies (boxed-set from Smugglers-Bay) which starred Basil (not Acott) Rathbone and Nigel Bruce as SH and DrW. Some absoute gems in there. It was a nice touch I thought the Rathbone/Baker Street connection. Anyone know if Rathbones Bakery is still in existence ?

Old Moriarty will be going cold Turkey when he finds out the Toffees are beating Sporting Lisbon.

I love Nigel Bruce...No Holmes/Watson pairing is quite as good as these two old stagers.

Me and she who must be obeyed have enjoyed ITV 3's Poirot weekend. David Suchet, Hugh Fraser and Phillip Jackson are great. I am thinking of investing in the box set whilst it is still cheap...£60 odd quid as opposed to £150 odd regular price.

[SteveS]

Hi All

Just out of interest the Morris Minor car used in Woffindens documentary (Mystery Of Deadman's Hill) also appears in the Darling Buds Of May (The Happiest Days of Your Life part 1) at about 10-15 minutes in. This show was first broadcast on the 28th February 1993.

[SteveS]

Hello Victor

Jamieson has since withdrawn those comments. See the Reed Garmson link you posted and I quoted last week.

Just to back up my correct assertion that Jamieson has not withdrawn his statements about Caddy I found this today.

http://www.theforensicinstitute.com/news/caddy-review.html

So far from withdrawing his comments Jamieson stands by his original statements wholeheartedly. All Jamieson has done is purely qualified the exact position of the facts surrounding the issue by adding the word formally to his previous statement to clarify the intercourse (ooohh err missus) between himself and Brian Caddy.

So it looks like you are quite wrong there Victor.

[Victor]

Just to back up my correct assertion that Jamieson has not withdrawn his statements about Caddy I found this today.

http://www.theforensicinstitute.com/...dy-review.html

Hi Steve,

From that link...
We stated that, “The Review team did not consult anyone who had expressed contrary opinion on the merits of the FSS Ltd’s LTDNA technique and spoke only to the organisations selling the technique and to the police as ‘customers’.” We accept that this was, strictly speaking, inaccurate inasmuch as Professor Jamieson had received a personal, unheaded, letter from Professor Caddy requesting his objections to the LCN technique.

Ho hum.

KR,
Vic.

[SteveS]

Hi Steve,

From that link...
We stated that, “The Review team did not consult anyone who had expressed contrary opinion on the merits of the FSS Ltd’s LTDNA technique and spoke only to the organisations selling the technique and to the police as ‘customers’.” We accept that this was, strictly speaking, inaccurate inasmuch as Professor Jamieson had received a personal, unheaded, letter from Professor Caddy requesting his objections to the LCN technique.

Ho hum.

KR,
Vic.

Hi Victor

Ho Hum indeed.

You were wrong in stating that Jamieson had withdrawn his comments as I charged you with. Jamieson stands by his comments wholeheartedly. It is there for all to see in cyberprint. In fact Jamieson has published the original retorts by the FI and from Barrister magazine on the FI's newly revamped website. Tell me I'm wrong Victor.

In fact Jamieson's original response to Caddy was:

The Review team did not consult anyone who had expressed contrary opinion on the merits of the FSS Ltd’s LTDNA technique and spoke only to the organisations selling the technique and to the police as ‘customers’. (This despite the Home Office’s own stated view that where commercial products are being “sold” to the police, “ 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.”)

As Brian Caddy corresponded with Jamieson on personal unheaded paper how was Jamieson to know of Caddy's interest or intent? Answer me that Victor?

For Caddy to try to illicit information for an extremely important forensic science review in such a casual manner smacks of amateurism to me. I think larue posted something similar just recently when he said "a minimum standard of qualification and body of knowledge would surely be a pre-requisite for any believeable official body or organization.
". Answer me that Victor.

Just to show the extent of Caddy's investigation why didn't you post this from the same article?

There is no mention of any other inquiry with known critics of the technique. For example, Professor Krane, the other key defence scientist in the Omagh Bombing trial, was not consulted.

Arguing with you is like arguing with a child who has to have the last word. Just accept that you are wrong with good grace for once in your life.

LCN is a dead duck.

The Reed ruling proves this. Jamieson has proved this. There is now a window of only 50 picograms where LCN has any useful vaild purpose. (between 200pg and 250pg)

Past cases involving LCN will have to be looked at again and it is just a matter of time before Hanratty is reopened. Woffinden, I am sure, will take the Hanratty case forward once again judging by his article in Inside Time.

Those that think Hanratty was guilty all along will just stick to that. Those who were convinced solely by the DNA will have to think again or, perhaps if pride is a problem for them, join the former group.

[Graham]

Steve,

Past cases involving LCN will have to be looked at again and it is just a matter of time before Hanratty is reopened. Woffinden, I am sure, will take the Hanratty case forward once again judging by his article in Inside Time.

To back up your above statement, do you know for sure if there is any material still remaining from the underwear? If there isn't, then it's going to be rather difficult to "reopen" the Hanratty Case as far as new DNA tests are concerned.

And how could Woffinden actually "take the Hanratty Case forward once again"? Officially, after the last appeal, the case is now closed presumably for ever as far as the authorities are concerned. Are you therefore suggesting that Woffinden might finance new analyses out of his own pocket? Or via a whip-round amongst the Hanrattyites? Or what?

You appear to live in somewhat forlorn hope as far as all this is concerned.

Graham

Graham

[jimarilyn]

Arguing with you is like arguing with a child who has to have the last word. Just accept that you are wrong with good grace for once in your life.

You've just hit the proverbial nail on the head Steve. It's refreshing and reassuring to know someone else feels this way.

Another finely argued, well backed-up, and easy to understand post. Reading yours, Dupplin Muir's and JamesDean's posts on the (much to be desired of) Low Copy Number technique has certainly increased my understanding of things DNA. Unlike yourself I can never hope to wax lyrical about it but I can definitely see why 98% of the World's nations have not embraced and adopted this technique even now, 11 years after it's introduction. Surely that must tell us something.

[Graham]

Well, as I see it, you can have all the finely-argued posts you like on this subject (DNA), but it won't make a tanner's worth of difference: JH's DNA was found on the underwear and the hankie according to the technology available at the time and the Law accepted this and continues to accept it. There ain't gonna be another opportunity.

I've spent an idle week or three re-reading Foot, Woffinden and Miller, and I have to say that the more I read the more I come round to the understanding that there really was sufficient evidence at his trial to convict him. For ages I've held the view that he shouldn't have been convicted on the prosecution evidence adduced at the trial, but I'm now beginning to modify that contention. It's too easy to read the evidence and dismiss it as either inaccurate or inconsequential, without trying to understand the effect that evidence had on the jury which, when all is said and done, is what really matters at any trial. All right, the jury, as either Foot or Woffinden said, may well have been composed of comfortable, well-fed burghers of the fine town on Bedford, but had the trial taken place at the Old Bailey before a twelve good barrow-boys and costermongers true (excuse my flippancy), would the verdict have been different?

Graham

[jimarilyn]

Two admirable qualities I really appreciate in people are consistency and constancy. For some strange reason the word 'ficklleness' is springing to mind. I wonder why.........

Here I go again, thinking out aloud. I must curb this tendency........well, perhaps not.

[SteveS]

To back up your above statement, do you know for sure if there is any material still remaining from the underwear? If there isn't, then it's going to be rather difficult to "reopen" the Hanratty Case as far as new DNA tests are concerned.

And how could Woffinden actually "take the Hanratty Case forward once again"? Officially, after the last appeal, the case is now closed presumably for ever as far as the authorities are concerned. Are you therefore suggesting that Woffinden might finance new analyses out of his own pocket? Or via a whip-round amongst the Hanrattyites? Or what?

You appear to live in somewhat forlorn hope as far as all this is concerned.

The DNA tests in 1999 used up the remaining fragment of Stories knickers. No new tests need to be done anyway. The existing tests will be reexamined for stochastic effects and the interpretations reviewed for inconsistancies. eg., inter alia, for any consensus decisions made in error. The integrity of the exhibits will have to taken into account due to the propensity for LCN to be severly affected by contamination.

Well, as I see it, you can have all the finely-argued posts you like on this subject (DNA), but it won't make a tanner's worth of difference: JH's DNA was found on the underwear and the hankie according to the technology available at the time and the Law accepted this and continues to accept it. There ain't gonna be another opportunity.

Don't hold your breath Graham. Anyway the Reed ruling makes it quite clear that the evidence as given in Hanratty is open to challange as being unreliable. Furthermore the technology used then is much the same as now, LCN just subverts SGM+ by way of increased cycles of the PCR and reduction in the RFU threshold for allele observation. LCN mixed profiles, as in Hanratty, still have no validated interpretation standards, even after Reed.

[SteveS]

You've just hit the proverbial nail on the head Steve. It's refreshing and reassuring to know someone else feels this way.

Another finely argued, well backed-up, and easy to understand post. Reading yours, Dupplin Muir's and JamesDean's posts on the (much to be desired of) Low Copy Number technique has certainly increased my understanding of things DNA. Unlike yourself I can never hope to wax lyrical about it but I can definitely see why 98% of the World's nations have not embraced and adopted this technique even now, 11 years after it's introduction. Surely that must tell us something.

Hi Jim
Just to add to that. One only has to ask oneself the very basic question; if LCN was reliable and robust for evidential purposes then why doesn't the FBI in America use it?

Cheers mate

[Graham]

Steve,

a straightforward and simple question: since its use was established, how many cases, murder or otherwise, have rested upon the results of LCN DNA in the United Kingdom?

Graham

[Victor]

You were wrong in stating that Jamieson had withdrawn his comments as I charged you with. Jamieson stands by his comments wholeheartedly. It is there for all to see in cyberprint. In fact Jamieson has published the original retorts by the FI and from Barrister magazine on the FI's newly revamped website. Tell me I'm wrong Victor.

Hi Steve,

OK, Jamieson has qualified his previous objections but has not stood by them wholeheartedly. I took the comments from the Reed\Garmson ruling quoted previously where Jamieson obviously told the judges he was going to be withdrawing his comments, only he didn't, he qualified them.

As Brian Caddy corresponded with Jamieson on personal unheaded paper how was Jamieson to know of Caddy's interest or intent? Answer me that Victor?

He could read his letters and reply to them.

Just accept that you are wrong with good grace for once in your life.

I would if I was. In good faith I quoted from links you provided, and you subsequently say the information contained within is inaccurate. Fair enough, I can accept that I was misled by inaccurate information from official sources.

LCN is a dead duck.

The Reed ruling proves this. Jamieson has proved this. There is now a window of only 50 picograms where LCN has any useful vaild purpose. (between 200pg and 250pg)

Those two statements are incompatible, either LCN is a dead duck, or it's useful and valid for samples between 200-250pg. Which incidentally may include the Hanratty samples - have you managed to establish whether the "3rd aliquot" is still available or not?

In addition the stochastic threshold is between 100-200pg, and that still better than SGM+ so could assist in obtaining convictions. Additionally the partial profiles obtained below 100pg could help investigators even if the evidence isn't admissible in court. In Hanratty the LCN DNA evidence confirmed the original verdict, so even if you get to a point where all the LCN data says is "Hanratty cannot be excluded from the possible contributors to the DNA sample on the knickers" that's still a long way away from saying he's innocent.

if LCN was reliable and robust for evidential purposes then why doesn't the FBI in America use it?

When you can establish that they don't use it, then that question is valid. Just assuming that because it can't be used in evidence means that they don't use it, is incredibly naive.

KR,
Vic.

[SteveS]

Steve,

a straightforward and simple question: since its use was established, how many cases, murder or otherwise, have rested upon the results of LCN DNA in the United Kingdom?

Graham

Graham

Not sure what you mean exactly by the emboldened phrase above.

Although according to the FSS LCN has been used in well over 20,000 cases. The outcome of these cases is not stated although conviction rates in most cases are high so it could be huge.