Hello Victor
I am glad that you now concede that Jamieson didn't withdraw his comments.
Jamieson did reply. See here http://www.theforensicinstitute.com/...y%20letter.htm
Wouldn't be the first time either eh Victor? The Hanratty judgement in 2002 for instance.
You now have doubts Victor about the DNA evidence in Hanratty. You would now like that 3rd aliquot (if available) to be quantified, as in Reed, to show whether or not the amount of DNA was above the stochastic threshold.
Where is this stochastic threshold exactly, Victor? I take a purely scientific standpoint from which experiments are empirical so we must say that for now it is 200pg just to be on the safe side. Don't you agree as a scientist? As Jamieson quite rightly points out, above 200pg with mixed LCN profiles;
Found @ http://www.theforensicinstitute.com/...institute2.htm
So even over 200pg we still have problems with LCN.
As I said LCN is a dead duck. It is a extremely expensive technique to perform and it is going to be too expensive for the CPS and therefore the police to carry on using it for evidential purposes. As an investigative or missing person identification tool it may still have a purpose but who is going to foot the bill for the cost of that? The FSS is in financial meltdown so it wont be them Victor!
You seem to be talking only about convictions. What do you think of using DNA to actually exonerate the convicted. How many times has this happened in the UK. Once as far as I can see (Sean Hodgson). In the US as at 21/1/10 249 prisoners convicted of serious offences (some on death row) have been exonearted due to the efforts of Barry Scheck and Peter Neufeld and their Innocence Project and DNA testing.
So at last you now concede that LCN cannot exclude an individual from a profile. Conversly SGM+ can only say for certain that an individual can be excluded. Therefore no DNA technique can say for absolute certain that a person can be included.
As far as innocence is concerned that will always be a problem for anyone convicted of a serious crime who seeks to clear their name. The laws of appeal are not interested one iota in guilt or innocent.
Susan May, who in all certainty was innocent, still hasn't had her conviction quashed. She was released on licence after serving her tariff of 12 years for murder. Even if she did manage to overturn her conviction it still wouldn't mean she is seen as being innocent in the eyes of the law. Legally it would mean that her conviction was in some way technical flawed.
Originally posted by Victor
View Post
Originally posted by Victor
View Post
Originally posted by Victor
View Post
Originally posted by Victor
View Post
Originally posted by Victor
View Post
Other complex, and as yet unanswered, questions remain. Many LCN profiles are mixtures, containing small amounts of DNA from two or more people. Does the 200pg limit apply to the total template DNA or to one or other of the contributors which, if the total is 200pg must by definition be less than that?
So even over 200pg we still have problems with LCN.
As I said LCN is a dead duck. It is a extremely expensive technique to perform and it is going to be too expensive for the CPS and therefore the police to carry on using it for evidential purposes. As an investigative or missing person identification tool it may still have a purpose but who is going to foot the bill for the cost of that? The FSS is in financial meltdown so it wont be them Victor!
You seem to be talking only about convictions. What do you think of using DNA to actually exonerate the convicted. How many times has this happened in the UK. Once as far as I can see (Sean Hodgson). In the US as at 21/1/10 249 prisoners convicted of serious offences (some on death row) have been exonearted due to the efforts of Barry Scheck and Peter Neufeld and their Innocence Project and DNA testing.
Originally posted by Victor
View Post
As far as innocence is concerned that will always be a problem for anyone convicted of a serious crime who seeks to clear their name. The laws of appeal are not interested one iota in guilt or innocent.
Susan May, who in all certainty was innocent, still hasn't had her conviction quashed. She was released on licence after serving her tariff of 12 years for murder. Even if she did manage to overturn her conviction it still wouldn't mean she is seen as being innocent in the eyes of the law. Legally it would mean that her conviction was in some way technical flawed.
Comment