a6 murder

[babybird67]

Jen,


Jen,

For the scientist to be saying that vaginal fluid was discovered to be mixed with the rapists semen, surely it follows that oxytocin was released too ie the ingredient present during the release of vaginal fluid in order to reach sexual orgasm,.I have great difficulty accepting this.I mean oxytocin is released in response to "pleasure" ,nurturing etc.What on earth can this have to do with rape for goodness sake.
Norma

What???? Are you for real? I honestly can't be bothered trying to tackle the nonsense in your postings much longer.

There was vaginal fluid and semen in a typical distribution and pattern which demonsrated to those who analyse these exhibits for a living that sexual intercourse had taken place between Hanratty and Storie. He raped her. That's the facts. That's the science. Be a denier if you choose. Defend a murderer and rapist if you choose. But those are the facts of the matter. End of.

[Natalie Severn]

What???? Are you for real? I honestly can't be bothered trying to tackle the nonsense in your postings much longer.

There was vaginal fluid and semen in a typical distribution and pattern which demonsrated to those who analyse these exhibits for a living that sexual intercourse had taken place between Hanratty and Storie. He raped her. That's the facts. That's the science. Be a denier if you choose. Defend a murderer and rapist if you choose. But those are the facts of the matter. End of.

Steady on,----vaginal fluid is not released automatically.The recipient usually only releases vaginal lubricant if she wants to participate surely?

Hence the market in KY jelly for those who get a "headache" or find sexual intercourse painful etc.

[tji]

Hi

[QUOTE=Natalie Severn;157188]Steady on,----vaginal fluid is not released automatically.The recipient usually only releases vaginal lubricant if she wants to participate surely?

Sorry to come in halfway through a thread but no, quite a lot of rape victims produce natural lubricant and can orgasm when being raped. The body responds to the stimulant it feels even if the victim doesn't want to participate.

Tj

[Natalie Severn]

Thanks for the point of information Trevor.I am surprised .
Norma

[Limehouse]

Hi Norma,

You still haven't given your proof of this contention so please stop repeating it because I believe it to be inaccurate.

KR,
Vic

For those who doubt that LCN DNA testing is regarded with caution and suspicion in many places other than the UK - the following article might prove useful:

http://www.suite101.com/content/what-is-low-copy-number-dna-a38840

[Victor]

For those who doubt that LCN DNA testing is regarded with caution and suspicion in many places other than the UK - the following article might prove useful:

http://www.suite101.com/content/what...ber-dna-a38840

Hi Julie,

That link is from 2007 and is superceded by the 2009 Reed/Reed/Garmson ruling.

KR,
Vic

[tji]

Hi Nats

Thanks for the point of information Trevor.I am surprised .


It's Tracy actually but no worries, I am sure I have been called worse...just last weekend in fact, but that's a different story


Tj

[Derrick]

That link is from 2007 and is superceded by the 2009 Reed/Reed/Garmson ruling.

Reed & Reed just confirms the limitation of LCN by acknowledging the stochastic effects associated with it.

So by that recognition where is LCN today?

It was only used where the starting quantity of DNA was likely to be in the stochastic region anyway. With quantitation being required for LCN then no LCN tests can be carried out. SGM+ can be used reliably with as little as 250pg at 28 PCR cycles for single samples.

So to now call any test in evidence in court as LCN is to immediately call into question it's reliability.

No mention is made in Reed & Reed of mixed profiles and the starting template quantity for each of the contributors. Mixed profile interpretation for LCN type tests has still not been validated by the Forensic Regulator Andrew Rennison.

One could have a swab of 3 or more persons DNA and have 300pg's of DNA. Yet each contributor's DNA weight in pg's could be 100pg's. All the profiles are then subject to stochastic effects as the primers are likely to fail to anneal properly to their base pair in the PCR process.

LCN was no different in 1998 as it is today. <200pg Template and 34 PCR cycles.

Derrick

[RonIpstone]

One could have a swab of 3 or more persons DNA and have 300pg's of DNA. Yet each contributor's DNA weight in pg's could be 100pg's. All the profiles are then subject to stochastic effects as the primers are likely to fail to anneal properly to their base pair in the PCR process.

By "each" do you mean each and everyone of the three or more contributors or do you mean a single one of the contributors?

If you mean the former then what you are saying is a mathematical impossibility in the case of more than three contributors.

I you mean the latter, then the figure of 100 pgs would seem to be meaningless in the context of the present debate.

To apply your cod science to the instant case, we have a sample which, if Hanratty is not guilty, should contain the DNA of four people, yet the tests which have been completed have only detected the DNA of three people. What I understand you to be trying to say is that for there to be a valid DNA profile, each of the four people who have contributed to the sample should have contributed 200 pgs of DNA.

Now as I understand the tests the boffins have been able to discover the DNA of only three people, to wit VS, MG and JH. The tests do not show that there was a fourth unidentifiable contributor. Your argument is that the DNA of the rapist was not detected because of insufficient DNA material. But common sense alone would indicate that the rapist's DNA would be there in abundance compared to the DNA which might have theoretically be transferred to the sample by contamination.

It seems to me that you are rubbishing the DNA tests by assuming that there was a fourth contributor, namely the rapist and murderer, and saying that his profile was not obtained because there was insufficient of his DNA to generate a profile. The sample in question could have consisted of 1200 pgs of material, but you could still trash the results by saying that the rapist's DNA was not detected because there was less than 200 pgs of his DNA material. All sensible people take the view that the real rapist's DNA was not detected because it was not there except in the form of the DNA of James Hanratty.

[jimarilyn]

I wasn't going to respond to this post but I hate blatingly mis-leading statements.......

Hi James,

Lies, damn lies and statistics...

I seriously doubt there are only 4 posts where Norma makes that mistake, and of course I repeatedly pointed out the error which is why it was corrected.

Which just goes to show how wrong [yet again] you are. Use the search button and you'll find out for yourself that i don't deal in lies.

[Admin]

Due to server issues and various other tasks, we are behind in responding to Report Posts so this warning comes delayed, however it will carry for the future.

Do not accuse other members of being a sock puppet on the boards. If you have a suspicion, contact the administrator. Leveling accusations against other posters and destroying their reputation based solely on your own suspicions and without any proof is the equivalent of slander.

If you have a suspicion, report it to the administrator. Do not decide to take vigilante justice when there is every possibility you could be wrong and you have blackened someone without evidence.

A poster may well be a sock puppet, there is no way to fully prevent re-registers, however without evidence, do not accuse. The administration is the only means of gathering evidence, and when we have it, we will act.

Once again: Do not accuse someone of being a sock puppet on the open forums. Report it to the administration.

Editing to add: We are getting more report posts from this thread than 90 percent of the Jack the Ripper threads. If you cannot treat each other with more respect on this subject, it will be closed.

[Natalie Severn]

tji Hi Nats

Thanks for the point of information Trevor.I am surprised .


It's Tracy actually but no worries, I am sure I have been called worse...just last weekend in fact, but that's a different story


Tj

I am so sorry Tracy! It must have been the pattern of your three initials' tji ' and beginning with "t" I thought you were Trevor Bond who posts as 'tnb'!
Shall be more careful in future.
Cheers
Norma

[tji]

Hi Nats


No worries.

Tj

[Black Rabbit]

Due to server issues and various other tasks, we are behind in responding to Report Posts so this warning comes delayed, however it will carry for the future.

Do not accuse other members of being a sock puppet on the boards. If you have a suspicion, contact the administrator. Leveling accusations against other posters and destroying their reputation based solely on your own suspicions and without any proof is the equivalent of slander.

If you have a suspicion, report it to the administrator. Do not decide to take vigilante justice when there is every possibility you could be wrong and you have blackened someone without evidence.

A poster may well be a sock puppet, there is no way to fully prevent re-registers, however without evidence, do not accuse. The administration is the only means of gathering evidence, and when we have it, we will act.

Once again: Do not accuse someone of being a sock puppet on the open forums. Report it to the administration.

Editing to add: We are getting more report posts from this thread than 90 percent of the Jack the Ripper threads. If you cannot treat each other with more respect on this subject, it will be closed.

Good call Admin, 'twas getting rather ridiculous in here!

[BiffityBiff]

Who knows? I wouldn't want to speculate too much about it - the other thread is here, or the whole collection of threads here


KR,
Vic.[/QUOTE]


Thanks Victor. I'll check them out when time permits.