a6 murder

[SteveS]

Hello Victor

Absolutely Julie, miscarriages of justice have occurred and Stefan Kisko was undeniably innocent, but just because it has happened doesn't mean that it makes it at all likely in Hanratty's case.

Oh doesn't it? I am with Woffinden on this when he says all the evidence against Hanratty has been discredited and that the LCN DNA is the only extant evidence.

However, some people have always considered Hanratty guilty so there are wide ranging opinions of the original evidence, some like Langdale's is very dubious, other bits like for me the cartridge cases from the murder weapon turning up in a room where Hanratty was the only ethnic match to the murderer is stronger.

And some people haven't if you hadn't already noticed.

My point stands, the DNA evidence corroborates the other evidence, which is the "additional cogent evidence" that was asked for.

The DNA you talk about in Hanratty is LCN DNA and is now not admissable because:
1) It hadn't been quantified.
2) The prosecution gave no caveats as to the reliability of the technique.
3) The prosecution went further and said that the judges should rely on it.
4) The prosecution made claims as to the tissue source of the DNA.
5) The prosecution made claims as to the way in which the DNA was deposited.
6) The prosecution did not bring any other evidence to support the DNA. The appellants grounds were not challanged by the prosecution. The judges acting as the jury just accepted the now not admissable evidence hook line and sinker.

I think that Steve has made a good discovery, but it was written by Woffinden with the express purpose of discreditting LCN, so is obviously biased.

Woffinden examined the ruling and has put together an extremely cogent analysis of the problems that still exist over LCN DNA evidence and how it still affects prior and future cases.

You have obviously completely missed the point. You can't just accept one appeal court ruling and then dismiss another when it suits your argument.

We can all now see that anything that contravenes your argument is biased, well we are entitled to our opinions but yours is now lacking in any scientific backing. The appeal court, the Caddy review and all of the experts agree with views that are diametrically opposed to yours.

[Graham]

Steve,

good article by Woffinden, but as far as Hanratty is concerned I think you must agree that it's completely academic, as the overwhelming chances are that there'll never be a new appeal. How would Woffinden and others deal with the inarguable fact that only JH's and Gregsten's DNA were found on the knicker fragment? If JH was innocent, where is the DNA of the rapist? Gone through all of this many times before, of course, but we still don't have an answer from those who claim that the DNA analysis was faulty.

The feeling at the time was that the police had got the right man, even though there were serious questions being raised concerning the conduct of the police and the the validity of some of the prosecution's tactics. As has been stated 'n' times before, on the basis of the trial, JH should never have been found guilty - not even the judge thought so. I repeat, it was the change of alibi that did for JH; that, and the identification evidence, slim though it may appear to us today. I also repeat, had JH stuck with the Liverpool alibi, had JH not given evidence, he may well have walked free from the court.

I've been re-reading Foot and Woffinden on and off for the past few weeks.
Foot waffles on a bit, Woffinden does tend to make bald statements with very little basis in fact. Both excellent writers, though, even though they are seperated by almost a generation's worth of difference in attitude.

But the one thing that does stick out like a sore thumb is that Alphon was, as Ewer said he was, a raving lunatic. There was method in his madness, of course, but I believe that his appearance on Panorama in 1965 really nailed for ever the belief that he was the A6 killer. He effectively retracted all his past 'confessions', and reversing the famous Paris Interview, the Panorama interviewer took Alphon apart.

Yet had the manager of the Alexandra Court Hotel not made that fateful phone-call to the police, we may well have never heard of Peter Louis Alphon, and James Hanratty may well have never been linked to the A6 Case, which would possibly have gone down in history as another unsolved murder.

This post is nothing much more than me thinking aloud. My feeling is that the A6 Case is slowly, but surely, receding into a past in which, very soon, few people will be bothered to venture.

So where is Dupplin Muir and his 'new evidence'?

Regards,

Graham

[Victor]

I am with Woffinden on this when he says all the evidence against Hanratty has been discredited and that the LCN DNA is the only extant evidence.

Hi Steve,

I'm not surprised that Woffinden says that, because that is a pre-requisite to undermining the LCN DNA evidence in Hanratty, because if any of the other evidence stands then the LCN must be right, and that weakens every other case that he's working on where LCN has been used.

And some people haven't if you hadn't already noticed.

Absolutely, and I don't deny that some people think the moon landing was faked, or JFK was assassinated, or Elvis is still alive [And I love Kate Bush's 'King of the Mountain']. There's always differences of opinion, but to state that all the evidence that convinced the original jury that Hanratty was guilty has been discredited is just plain wrong.

The DNA you talk about in Hanratty is LCN DNA and is now not admissable because:
1) It hadn't been quantified.

That's preferable, but not absolutely required, and now cannot be done, so we have to go from the evidence as it stands.

2) The prosecution gave no caveats as to the reliability of the technique.

Nor would they today.

3) The prosecution went further and said that the judges should rely on it.

Absolutely, that's their job.

4) The prosecution made claims as to the tissue source of the DNA.

No they didn't.

5) The prosecution made claims as to the way in which the DNA was deposited.

No they didn't, unless you are referring to their expert, who talked about a "typical distribution".

6) The prosecution did not bring any other evidence to support the DNA. The appellants grounds were not challanged by the prosecution. The judges acting as the jury just accepted the now not admissable evidence hook line and sinker.

They relied on the original evidence, the DNA was brought to corroborate the original evidence. The non-disclosure was bad, but typical for the time. The judges accepted the corroboration of the LCN DNA evidence, which has not been ruled inadmissable.

Woffinden examined the ruling and has put together an extremely cogent analysis of the problems that still exist over LCN DNA evidence and how it still affects prior and future cases.

Woffinden has done the best he can to besmirch the case, but hasn't succeeded.

You have obviously completely missed the point. You can't just accept one appeal court ruling and then dismiss another when it suits your argument.

I haven't dismissed any ruling, I have accepted the CCRC judgment.

We can all now see that anything that contravenes your argument is biased, well we are entitled to our opinions but yours is now lacking in any scientific backing. The appeal court, the Caddy review and all of the experts agree with views that are diametrically opposed to yours.

Are you actually implying that Woffinden isn't biased, or those employed by the defence specifically to overturn the Hoey or Reed convictions aren't biased? They're being paid to find discrepancies and overlook corroborations... In other words, they are being paid to be biased, and if they fail then they don't get another job!

Yes, you are entitled to your opinions, but to state that "all of the experts agree with views that are diametrically opposed to yours" is just plain wrong. People are also entitled to believe that the world is flat.

KR,
Vic.

[caz]

Afternoon All,

Anyone would think, from reading some of the recent arguments, that if a DNA technique is not considered by every scientist in the world to be 100% reliable and robust, it will more likely than not result in an innocent person's profile being mistaken for that of the guilty party (while the real offender's profile will presumably be missed or missing from the sample).

I would think that in reality, unreliable science lets far more suspects/defendants off the hook, guilty or not, than it wrongfully convicts the innocent. I'd be slightly more worried with any DNA technique that was widely accepted to be a magic bullet, because then what would the innocent do when human error inevitably crept in?

I think it's a bit patronising, if not entirely misplaced, to invoke the 'juries have tended to be blinded by science, and in particular by DNA science' argument in the A6 case, along with the 'popular presumption' that 'if they’ve got your DNA, they’ve got you'. The original 1960s jury had to do their job with only blood group O semen from the rapist on the victim's knickers and the gun and hankie evidence. It was the Hanratty appeal which had the burden of considering the specific DNA findings in the context of all the available evidence in the case, including the various testimonies offered during the trial, which had collectively led (rightly or wrongly at the time) to that original jury's verdict.

If there had been anyone around in 2002 who could have helped rather than hindered Hanratty's claim to have been in Rhyl at the crucial time, wouldn't the defence team have produced them and milked them for all they were worth? Talk about a vote of no confidence in any of the Rhyl witness testimony! The problem that tends to get overlooked is the shift in onus at the appeal. The defence now had to demonstrate that the evidence which convinced the original A6 jury was flawed, weak or incomplete. On top of that they had to show that the only new evidence produced - a matching DNA profile on knickers and hankie, identified as Hanratty's - was flawed, weak, unreliable or inconclusive. Of course, they'd have been home and dry if any other individual had been indicated, or Hanratty not indicated. But they failed on all counts to conjure up the reasonable doubt they now required to get the conviction quashed.

Sometimes, the 'Jimdidn'tdoitites' really need to listen to themselves, because one can only imagine the reaction at the appeal if Hanratty's defence had argued that the DNA results had come about because Alphon, the real rapist, may have been unable to leave any sperm, while Hanratty's DNA had arrived on the knicker fragment by mishandling.

Had Alphon been hanged back in 1962 instead of Hanratty (which could so easily have happened), would anyone now feel comfortable finding ways round the DNA results to uphold the guilty verdict? The equivalent would be defenders of Castree (in the Molseed case) suggesting, in desperation, that Kiszko could still have been guilty, despite his proven inability to produce sperm, and Castree the innocent victim of the kind of forensic and police incompetence we know ran through this sad case.

I agree that it does sound 'frighteningly simple' for anyone to commit a crime and frame someone else for it by planting that person's DNA at the scene. But it would only work if the offender could make absolutely sure that none of their own DNA would be found there as well, which wouldn't be easy. If they left any traces at all, along with the person they were framing, then the very technique that is being condemned as unreliable would pick them both up, guilty and innocent, and the results would obviously be interpreted alongside any other evidence.

In short, if the technique itself could be shown to be unreliable, both parties would end up going free unless there was proof of a different sort against the guilty one. The irony is that if the offender did manage to leave only the DNA of the person they were framing, it would be a technique regarded across the board as robust and reliable that would be most dangerous to this innocent person.

But none of this applies to Hanratty anyway. If he had been innocent, there is no way that the real rapist, back in 1961, could have done a damned thing to make sure that no DNA-bearing traces of himself would be left on anything, or that only Hanratty's would show up forty years on. Neither could anyone else framing Hanratty have done the job either, or so perfectly.

On top of that, there is nothing that even looks flawed, weak, ambiguous or inconclusive about the DNA results - unless one has already decided they must actually be wrong (not just unreliable)because Hanratty could not have been guilty.

If one accepts that there is no actual proof of his innocence, just a list of other people's apparent shortcomings and wrongdoings in the aftermath of the crime, then it becomes less easy to argue that the DNA results are unreliable, much less wrong. They are, after all, exactlywhat one would expect to see if Hanratty did commit that crime, and hope to see, considering that he was hanged for it.

Or does anyone here think that even a guilty Hanratty would have deserved to get away with it on the evidence presented?

Love,

Caz
X

[SteveS]

Hi Graham

...good article by Woffinden, but as far as Hanratty is concerned I think you must agree that it's completely academic, as the overwhelming chances are that there'll never be a new appeal. How would Woffinden and others deal with the inarguable fact that only JH's and Gregsten's DNA were found on the knicker fragment? If JH was innocent, where is the DNA of the rapist? Gone through all of this many times before, of course, but we still don't have an answer from those who claim that the DNA analysis was faulty.

I not only published Woffindens article but a link to the appeal ruling on which he based it. The 2 are not mutually exclusive. (only the latter is too long to put here)

You must read the Reed/Reed/Garmson ruling before making any opinion on the future prospects, if any, in the Hanratty case with regard to the DNA evidence.

The ruling now defers to the Forensic Regulator's guidelines and makes significant noises about how DNA evidence is to be handled in the criminal justice system.

[Andrew]

Police Notebook

Right, which one of you bought the ‘Hanratty Police Notebook’ on ebay?:
This old Police note book from 1961, Lots of very interesting reading, Included is the express Messages about the A6 murders near Clophill Beds, Wanted is James Hanratty for the murder of a man and woman found in the layby, Lookout for their Morris Minor 847BHN, 193 Pages in this book.

It made £12.95
Regards
Andrew

[Victor]

The Reed/Reed/Garmson appeal ruling can be accessed @ http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2009/2698.html

I'm just reading through this ruling and am amazed by a couple of things.

First Professor Jamieson is massively called into question in para's 104-110, such as "Whilst it is impossible to understand how he had sufficient expertise to be able to give evidence in R v Hoey, let alone to assist in the attack made in that case on the LCN process, he has given evidence in so many Low Template DNA cases since then on the strength of the observations in R v Hoey that he has acquired a degree of experience from these cases, his discussion with others and his reading of papers"

Second, the evidence doesn't relate to LCN, as a run was made with SGM+ which matched the LCN data, so para 70 "At the outset of the appeal in Garmson, the appellant abandoned the ground of appeal relating to the reliability of the evidence of the DNA obtained from Low Template DNA using the LCN process"

And finally, Para 114. (i) "It is now established that the underlying science for Low Template DNA analysis is sufficiently reliable to produce profiles, where the amount analysed is above the stochastic threshold of between 100 and 200 picograms."

I'm still reading through the rest.

KR,
Vic.

[Graham]

Hi Andrew,

Included is the express Messages about the A6 murders near Clophill Beds, Wanted is James Hanratty for the murder of a man and woman found in the layby, Lookout for their Morris Minor 847BHN, 193 Pages in this book.

Is the above an actual quote from this book? If so, it was presumably written before the car was found, in which case how did anyone know it was James Hanratty who was responsible? Unless I've totally misunderstood the above, I'd say the thing smells a bit.

Plus as we all know there was 'only' one murder...

Cheers,

Graham

[Andrew]

This old Police note book from 1961, Lots of very interesting reading, Included is the express Messages about the A6 murders near Clophill Beds, Wanted is James Hanratty for the murder of a man and woman found in the layby, Lookout for their Morris Minor 847BHN, 193 Pages in this book.
This is the seller’s précis of the notebook contents which appear to be police bulletins from 1961 with the latest information. I suppose he fluffed it because he doesn’t understand all the issues.
Interestingly from the photo you can just make out the line ‘It is alleged that suspect gave his name as Brown’. Is this another angle on the blue eyes/brown eyes argument?
Also included was a hand-written note on the back of a road traffic census form (or maybe I’m dreaming).
Regards
Andrew

[Graham]

Hi Andrew,

not being a big e-bay watcher, I never saw this. But if with the book was the original and genuine note that John Kerr wrote on the back of a traffic-census form, then that is a very important document, as the police said they 'mislaid' the original and produced a rather dodgy 'copy' at the trial.

I wonder if the buyer posts to this thread.....

Cheers,

Graham

[Tony]

This old Police note book from 1961, Lots of very interesting reading, Included is the express Messages about the A6 murders near Clophill Beds, Wanted is James Hanratty for the murder of a man and woman found in the layby, Lookout for their Morris Minor 847BHN, 193 Pages in this book.
This is the seller’s précis of the notebook contents which appear to be police bulletins from 1961 with the latest information. I suppose he fluffed it because he doesn’t understand all the issues.
Interestingly from the photo you can just make out the line ‘It is alleged that suspect gave his name as Brown’. Is this another angle on the blue eyes/brown eyes argument?
Also included was a hand-written note on the back of a road traffic census form (or maybe I’m dreaming).
Regards
Andrew

You know it always happens doesn’t it.

I read this thread every day and I have phases of going on ebay; I never sell just buy.

I have recently bought some fishing rods and royal crown derby and I buy a lot of old photos.

When I log-in to ebay I usually key in the search term Hanratty and that is why I have managed to get a lot of books on the case. Some many times over.

I wanted to buy Hangman Harry Allen’s note books which contained several references to JH. They were auctioned at Knutsford quite close to me and I thought I might pick them up for a reasonable price.
They went for £17,000 so I didn’t bother at the end of the day but if I had seen that item I would have paid far,far more than £12.95.
So if anybody on here has bought it and when they have read it you can send me a PM and you will make a very handsome profit indeed.

Tony.

[SteveS]

First Professor Jamieson is massively called into question in para's 104-110, such as "Whilst it is impossible to understand how he had sufficient expertise to be able to give evidence in R v Hoey, let alone to assist in the attack made in that case on the LCN process, he has given evidence in so many Low Template DNA cases since then on the strength of the observations in R v Hoey that he has acquired a degree of experience from these cases, his discussion with others and his reading of papers"

So why did the Caddy Review ask for Jamieson's input then? The court of appeal relied completely on the directives of the Caddy Review. A slight contradiction there n'est pas?

Second, the evidence doesn't relate to LCN, as a run was made with SGM+ which matched the LCN data, so para 70 "At the outset of the appeal in Garmson, the appellant abandoned the ground of appeal relating to the reliability of the evidence of the DNA obtained from Low Template DNA using the LCN process"

Woffinden's article told us that and he went on to describe the real problems with LCN as it applies in the Garmson case. I hope that you are going to report these when you reach that part of the ruling.

And finally, Para 114. (i) "It is now established that the underlying science for Low Template DNA analysis is sufficiently reliable to produce profiles, where the amount analysed is above the stochastic threshold of between 100 and 200 picograms."

The FSS first started quantifying LCN tests in the summer of 2009!!!! What about the previous 10 years Victor? That would include Hanratty.

Also Victor, if LCN is so reliable above the stochastic threshold why hasn't anyone cashed in and produced a kit akin to SGM+? Think about it.

[Victor]

So why did the Caddy Review ask for Jamieson's input then? The court of appeal relied completely on the directives of the Caddy Review. A slight contradiction there n'est pas?

Hi Steve,

That one's easy, it was a thorough review and to avoid getting accused of things like "the review had not consulted anyone who had expressed a contrary opinion on the FSS's LCN process and "spoke only to the organisations selling the technique" and to the police as "customers"." but Jamieson refused to contribute "for reasons which did not seem to us to be at all convincing" and he and his organisation [the Forensic Institute] went ahead and accused them of it anyway (see para 108)

Woffinden's article told us that and he went on to describe the real problems with LCN as it applies in the Garmson case. I hope that you are going to report these when you reach that part of the ruling.

Sorry, I can't find what you are talking about here, what do you mean?

The FSS first started quantifying LCN tests in the summer of 2009!!!! What about the previous 10 years Victor? That would include Hanratty.

Yes, but just because the samples weren't quantified doesn't mean it was below 200pg! There are a couple of issues here:-

1. Is there a "3rd alliquot" that could still be quantified?
2. The knicker fragment profile was much more confident than the hanky according to the judgement, which strongly suggests that the hanky profile was near the stochastic limit, but that the knicker fragment was above it.

Also Victor, if LCN is so reliable above the stochastic threshold why hasn't anyone cashed in and produced a kit akin to SGM+? Think about it.

Just adding the word "YET" to your question makes it much easier to answer.

Also Dr Budowle, Prof Caddy, and Prof Jamieson all agree that above the 200pg stochastic threshold LCN is reliable, so maybe you should ask them.

KR,
Vic.

[RonIpstone]

You know it always happens doesn’t it.

I read this thread every day and I have phases of going on ebay; I never sell just buy.

I have recently bought some fishing rods and royal crown derby and I buy a lot of old photos.

When I log-in to ebay I usually key in the search term Hanratty and that is why I have managed to get a lot of books on the case. Some many times over.

Hi Tony,

My recollection of trying to buy something on ebay was that you could set up a standing search so that when whatever interested you was listed you received an email. I think you can still do this.

In the 'old days' you would now know who had won the auction, but I think nowadays his indentity is hidden and only revealed if he leaves feedback for the seller. If he does you should be able to contact him direct.

Ron

[SteveS]

That one's easy, it was a thorough review and to avoid getting accused of things like "the review had not consulted anyone who had expressed a contrary opinion on the FSS's LCN process and "spoke only to the organisations selling the technique" and to the police as "customers"." but Jamieson refused to contribute "for reasons which did not seem to us to be at all convincing" and he and his organisation [the Forensic Institute] went ahead and accused them of it anyway (see para 108)

If the appeal court found it:

"...impossible to understand how he had sufficient expertise to be able to give evidence in R v Hoey, let alone to assist in the attack made in that case on the LCN process."

then what use would it do the Caddy Review to have consulted him on the process of LCN in the first place when he plainly had such little expertise according to the CA? Where does that leave the integrity of the Caddy Review if they are willing to call on any person that the CA doubts as being credible.

Seeing as the CA relied totally on the Caddy Review it takes circular reasoning and contradiction to the Champions League level of nonsense.

In fact here are the terms of reference for the Review:

The terms of reference given to this review panel are:
i). To examine low template DNA profiling techniques, including the Low Copy Number (LCN) technique employed by the Forensic Science Service Ltd (FSS), and analogous processes used by other providers of DNA profiling services to the UK Criminal Justice System (CJS), to generate DNA profiles from samples which may not yield useable results from the standard DNA profiling (termed SGM Plus® process discussed in section 1.4). This is to include processes which seek to obtain profiles from DNA samples below 200 picogram (pg) and the application of supra-28 cycle amplification;
ii). To advise upon the scientific validity of those techniques, having regard to any novel issues raised (in comparison with accepted SGM Plus® techniques) and the variations in approach adopted by different providers, recommending best practice in the light of current scientific knowledge and opinion;
iii). To comment upon the interpretation of the results and how they should be presented to the customer and to the court in any criminal proceedings;
iv). To advise upon the creation of a national minimum technical standard for low template DNA analysis, to include extraction, quantification/dilution and interpretation criteria; and
v). To make other relevant recommendations.

(found here http://mccannfiles.com/id190.html)

Not even in the first embolded passage does it state that outside views were to be consulted.
Then in the second emboldened passage we learn that they would not have called on experts such as Budowle, Krane, Thompson et al who are from other jurisdictions. Completely insular remit what?

As I understand it Jamieson was asked to give input and when he asked for further information on the framework of the review he never heard from Caddy again. So if the CA finds Jamiesons explanations unclear and; "for reasons which did not seem to us to be at all convincing." then that is their call, but I am not impressed by it at all.

Victor you said that Jamieson refused to participate in the Caddy Review, but I cannot find that explanantion used anywhere. Could you give me a reference to it please for my records?

Jamieson's comments on the review not consulting dissenting views is correct and valid. As we have seen The Caddy Review's remit did not include consulting anyone other than the suppliers (notably the FSS) and the customers (The Police).

Yet Jamieson has clearly got what he wanted anyway and that is the exposure of LCN as being an unreliable technique below the stochastic threshold for single samples. Yet further he must be concerned that the Reed appeal and Caddy have not dealt with mixed samples above 200pg which still cause concern and challanges for both previous and future cases.

Sorry, I can't find what you are talking about here, what do you mean?

Woffinden, in his article said:

Ironically, however, by the time it was heard, this wasn’t an LCN appeal at all.

The DNA recovered from a crime scene is routinely divided into three parts, which are termed aliquots. Two are tested and the third held in reserve. Because, during the period between trial and appeal, Professor Caddy had recommended quantification, the FSS had measured the amount of material in the remaining aliquot and discovered that there was 2.5 nanograms of DNA material – more than sufficient for standard DNA testing.

This meant that the original judgment of the Crown’s forensic scientist, Valerie Tomlinson, about the quantity of material available had been wrong, so that the FSS had initially performed the wrong tests on the material.

At paragraph 68 the ruling says:

...a profile was produced that was similar to that obtained using the LCN process...

Even so, it was not surprising that the SGM+ test produced a similar result; as the FSS had carried out the wrong test in the first place. The quantity was 2.5ng. Well done FSS. Perhaps they should be made to pay the costs of the appeal for wasting everybody's time. But no, Valerie Tomlinson was praised as being a very impressive witness with shed loads of experience. Even so she dropped a real clanger in the Reed case.

As for the rest then, to simplify - please give me your views on the mixed sample in Garmson and your concerns over mistakes made at trial and how they should be rectified. At present the CA just say, basically, hard cheese sonny you should have challenged it first time around now go and rot in jail for a few more years.

Yes, but just because the samples weren't quantified doesn't mean it was below 200pg! There are a couple of issues here:-

1. Is there a "3rd alliquot" that could still be quantified?
2. The knicker fragment profile was much more confident than the hanky according to the judgement, which strongly suggests that the hanky profile was near the stochastic limit, but that the knicker fragment was above it.

And it doesn't mean that either was above 100pg so it is pointless for you to just speculate and try to make some kind of fact out of fancy.

Here are a few more issues for you that have not been disclosed and which you may care to make speculaive claims for the validity of LCN in Hanratty:
1) How many loci were examined? 4? Maybe. 6, Quite possibly. 10? Maybe. Who knows? But the fewer the number the less confident one can be over match possibilities.
2) The RFU level implemented. This would have to be lowered to pick up the original low level of template. Who knows what it was.
3) Alleles discounted by the consensus over the aliquot runs tested.
4) Alleles added that the interpretor would have expected due to allelic drop out.

This data has not been made publicly available so no real evaluation can be made until it can be looked at again.

Just adding the word "YET" to your question makes it much easier to answer.

Also Dr Budowle, Prof Caddy, and Prof Jamieson all agree that above the 200pg stochastic threshold LCN is reliable, so maybe you should ask them.

The SGM+ kit was developed quite quickly after international standardization but that will never happen with LCN because 98% of the worlds judicial systems don't accept LCN as being valid as evidence in court.
Even so what problems do you forsee on gaining national acceptance of such a kit. I suggest comparing the qualities of the SGM+ kit with any thoughts you may have. I'll give you a couple of clues; standard RFU level and minimum template amount that deals with mixed samples adequately.

As we all know mixed sample interpretation with SGM+ is difficult and that has a fixed RFU level and a minimum template level of 1ng at 28 PCR cycles.

Just because the total original template is above 200pg doesn't mean that stochastic effects cannot happen. In a mixed sample each contributor to that sample may well be below 200pg so each contributor may still be affected by the stochastic effects which are unpredictable and cause unreproducible profile graphs.

Good luck.

I agree with Woffinden. He may be biased but he is certainly biased for the side of common sense and reason as far as this judgement is concerned and the problems that still exist in the Hanratty case.