Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

A6 Rebooted

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Black Rabbit View Post
    I came across the following articles (a little dated I know but relevant none the less) which are very interesting regarding DNA testing. I have taken the liberty of taking a quote from each but please read the whole article in each case.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7959431.stm

    ‘Cold Cases’
    ‘Previously, it was impossible for scientists to accurately separate out DNA from different individuals at one crime scene, for example, where two or more suspects handled the same weapon’



    http://www.rsc.org/chemistryworld/Is...ostWarmsUp.asp

    ‘But crime-scene samples which have come from more than one source, or have become contaminated or degraded over time, have until now proved uninterpretable by DNA profiling. ‘

    So it makes me wonder how such definitive results were achieved from the (mixed) samples taken from the knicker fragment prior to DNAboost
    Originally posted by RonIpstone View Post
    Precisely. If there had been two unidentified contributors to the DNA material under analysis, then there would have been difficulty or even impossibility in identifying the contributors. In the instant case it was possible to exclude the DNA of the known contributors, to wit, Michael Gregsten and Valerie Storie and analyse the remaining contributor or contributors. This matched the profile of Sunny Jim much to the chagrin of his numerous supporters. Their argument was that Jim's DNA was there as a contaminant; but this left the question, where was the real rapist's DNA? Nowhere, being the answer to this poser. So either Jim was the rapist or the rapist's DNA has degraded to the extent that it escapes detection.

    So, to sum up, one unaccounted for profile which matched Jim's DNA.
    Sorry, perhaps I didn't make myself clear. Given the articles in my previous post, what I'm asking is how could/was the 'soup' of three mixed sources of DNA successfully & definitively separated for identification prior to DNAboost?
    Silence is Consent!

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Black Rabbit View Post
      Sorry, perhaps I didn't make myself clear. Given the articles in my previous post, what I'm asking is how could/was the 'soup' of three mixed sources of DNA successfully & definitively separated for identification prior to DNAboost?

      Apologies accepted.

      You will have to wait for Derrick, who has the necessary scientific qualifications, to answer the precise hows and whys etc. of the procedure used.

      The snippets quoted do not have the detail of a scientific thesis, but it seems that DNAboost will assist where one has a 'soup' of more than one unknown contributors, whereas in the instant case we have two known and one unknown.

      It should be remembered that (1) all the experts agreed that Hanratty's DNA profile was present and had been properly isolated, and (2) as is shown here that before the 1997 tests had been concluded, the expert instructed by the Hanratty family was confident that the tests would be conclusive.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Black Rabbit View Post
        http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7959431.stm

        ‘Cold Cases’
        ‘Previously, it was impossible for scientists to accurately separate out DNA from different individuals at one crime scene, for example, where two or more suspects handled the same weapon’

        .....
        So it makes me wonder how such definitive results were achieved from the (mixed) samples taken from the knicker fragment prior to DNAboost
        Hi Black Rabbit
        dnaBoost is just a computer program that attempts to decipher all of the possible contributors to a mixed profile and nothing else. For certain dnaBoost could not be used with LCN as stochastic effects will make any allele calls unreliable. As Jamieson says this could lead to innocent persons being faced with answering to crimes they didn't commit.

        Derrick

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Black Rabbit View Post
          Sorry, perhaps I didn't make myself clear. Given the articles in my previous post, what I'm asking is how could/was the 'soup' of three mixed sources of DNA successfully & definitively separated for identification prior to DNAboost?
          Hi Black Rabbit
          It wasn't. Once Hanratty had been exhumed, the FSS just cherry picked alleles that matched Hanratty, and accounted for those that didn't as allelic drop out. Any other stocahstic effects such as allelic drop in, increased stutter and baseline noise could all be falsely included to match Hanratty's profile.

          MG's DNA was only attributed to him. Somebody recently said that his son may have provided a DNA sample for referential purposes. But that is not good enough in this case.
          A full referential profile of MG is the only thing that would be satisfactory. I have no record of MG being exhumed so that still leaves MG's profile as being completely uncertain.

          This still leaves the unknown factor.

          How many of VS, MG and JH's alleles where the same at any loci?

          Noone knows.

          With LCN it is certain that unreliable allele peak heights make mixed profiles impossible to interpret reliably. Certainly not reliable enough to put before a court of law.

          If they had been from differing ethnic backgrounds then it may be easier but each was seemingly a Caucausian with long standing popular roots in the area where the crime ocurred.

          The comparitive database is very small and is certainly not comprehensive as Sir Alec Jeffreys is at pains to point out. Jeffreys opposes the NDNAD in its current government controlled guise. He supports a totally inclusive NDNAD overseen by a completely independent body.

          I don't see that happening any day soon though!

          Derrick.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by RonIpstone View Post
            That there were no contaminants is a matter of the greatest serendipity, for it allowed the forensic boffins to finally bring home the charge to the door of Hanratty.
            So Ron or RonIpstone finds it "a matter of the greatest serendipity" that a legal process that had suppressed evidence and tampered with witness statements , and used corrupt testimony such as that of Nudds and Langdale to bring about a conviction should now use its "forensic boffins" to its obfuscate DNA tests?
            Surely,if those LCN tests had been worth anything at all ,at least some of the DNA from all those other contributors should have been present ?Isn"t their strange disappearance far more indicative of dubious LCN test results ?Are you trying to tell us that somehow,by some miracle [in a case full of miraculous coincidences] that after 40 years being kept with other items in a single folder in a police lab , Hanratty"s immaculately preserved DNA sample was found on a 40 year old piece of cloth that had been wrapped in an old bit of cellophane and brown paper amongst a vial of broken glass etc etc .....a broken vial that had probably contained a solution of Hanratty"s seminal fluid! Oh P-l-e-a-s-e!-do come off it RonnyRonipstone!

            Comment


            • Hi Ron

              Originally posted by RonIpstone View Post
              You will have to wait for Derrick, who has the necessary scientific qualifications, to answer the precise hows and whys etc. of the procedure used.
              Done... as in my previous 2 posts.

              Originally posted by RonIpstone View Post
              The snippets quoted do not have the detail of a scientific thesis, but it seems that DNAboost will assist where one has a 'soup' of more than one unknown contributors, whereas in the instant case we have two known and one unknown.
              dnaBoost cannot be used with LCN.

              In Hanratty we have 3 possible referential profiles, assuming that VS and PLA each gave a buccal swab, and god knows how many other unknowns who DNA would be on the knicker fragment.

              Originally posted by RonIpstone View Post
              ...as is shown here that before the 1997 tests had been concluded, the expert instructed by the Hanratty family was confident that the tests would be conclusive...
              Looking at the results that Dr Lincoln was investigating in that film clip he used either SLP (single locus probe) or RFLP (restricted length fragment polymorphism) both of which are completely incompatible for comparison with the STR type SGM test which was adduced at appeal in 2002.

              Dr Lincoln's test must have been performed before 1992 when Woffinden's documentary was first broadcast, because it isn't included in the later broadcast edition in 1994. Therefore the Home Office must have performed 2 more tests, the first in 1995 (SGM) and the second (LCN) in 1998. The first of these was inconclusive and backed up Dr Lincoln. The second was LCN and as such is not suitable for evidential purposes laid down by the overwhelming majority of international justice system.

              As LCN was used in the second round of testing by the Crown, it should now be rendererd as inadmissable as a quantitation step was not done. In Reed (2009) all LCN tests must be quantified. This includes all LCN tests done that were adduced as evidence.

              Derrick

              Comment


              • Originally posted by RonIpstone View Post
                ...as is shown here that before the 1997 tests had been concluded, the expert instructed by the Hanratty family was confident that the tests would be conclusive.
                Hi Ron
                All Dr Lincoln said was that other tests would be carried out.

                Derrick

                Comment


                • Quite true, Derrick, but the point is that he did not express any caveats or provisos as to the integrity of the tests which he envisaged would be 'progressed'. If he had said words to the effect that the whole procedure was going to be a complete waste of time due to whatever, then the arguments now being advanced might have some validity.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by RonIpstone View Post
                    Quite true, Derrick, but the point is that he did not express any caveats or provisos as to the integrity of the tests which he envisaged would be 'progressed'. If he had said words to the effect that the whole procedure was going to be a complete waste of time due to whatever, then the arguments now being advanced might have some validity.
                    Hi Ron

                    All Dr Lincoln would have known in 1992 was that STR typing was being developed and may shed more light on the samples in the future. Dr Lincoln is a scientist and not a fortune teller after all.

                    SGM didn't come online in the UK until 1995 which enabled the Government to introduce the NDNAD. It was then that the Home Office ordered the next round of tests to be done. These were also inconclusive.

                    Derrick

                    Comment


                    • Hello everybody

                      Hello again everybody. I remember my mother reading from the Daily Express (it was a broadsheet then, believe it or not) on the morning of Sunday 18th February 1962 and saying “I see they found that lad guilty”. It meant nothing to me then as an eight year old but little did I think that I was become utterly enthralled by the case and still writing about it some fifty years later! I went to school in Bedford (John Kerr was a much older fellow student) and first read Foot as a new edition in 1971 (I still have it and really must return it to the school library some day).

                      Firstly, one of the jurors HAS made a statement on TV (regrettably I missed recording it on video); this happened after the DNA results and appeal verdict. I immediately recognized the man as a friend of my father’s and have every reason to consider him to be reasonable, honest and trustworthy. Whether he was representative of the remainder of the jury I shall never know but in his short piece on TV he was filmed with his memorabilia of the case and stated that he was pleased that the decision had been “vindicated” as it obviously had been weighing on his mind.

                      My feeling as a non-scientist on the DNA is this; I would only be convinced of the result of there was a control sample, like another person’s bodily fluid extracted in August 1961, kept in the same conditions and location as the exhibits then subjected to the same DNA test and coming to the same conclusions. Impossible I know, but does anyone know if this control check has actually ever been done to prove the DNA extraction techniques used in cases like this? I think probably not.

                      Considering H’s guilt, I have returned to the doubtful camp after being convinced of his innocence (after Foot and Woffinden) and guilt (after the DNA and Miller). I have my concerns over the Rhyl alibi and would like (maybe one of us has done this already) to travel up to Rhyl on August 22 and reenact H’s steps (starting at the bus station at 8.19 p.m.) to see how feasible it all is, with particular reference as to whether there was enough daylight for H’s hair colour to be seen. Are there any weather maps available back to that date? August 1961 was before the days of package holidays so I imagine young males would have gone to resorts like Rhyl for S,S & S so it could have been someone else. There was always the possibility that H made up the Rhyl alibi as an ambush when his Liverpool mates would not play ball. I genuinely believe he thought he would get off the murder charge at first but kept the Rhyl alibi up his sleeve when things got a bit tricky.

                      It is known that H was photographed outside the court during the trial to enable the Rhyl alibi to be explored. Were those photos made public? I imagine they were and I think one of them is the “staring eyes” photo on the left where Foot compares H and Alphon with the indentikit image. I say that because it looks like a “posed” photo and the significance of it to me is that it gives an idea of H’s state of mind during the trial. The few photos that exist of H (with the exception of the mugshot taken while in custody) seems to indicate someone who did not take life too seriously even when he was on trial for his life. I think he thought he was going to get off which may have influenced the Rhyl “ambush” alibi; am I being unfair here?

                      I have also kept A6 press cuttings whenever I could but sadly missed one which was in Punch magazine just after M. Al Fayed resurrected it some years ago. John McVicar (the ex-con) was a contributor and he did an article on H where he stated categorically that David Emery was a friend of his and told McVicar that H had confessed to him (Emery) while in prison. Maybe not the most reliable source but food for thought anyway.


                      Anyway, this is my first post for a while which may explain me rambling on a bit. This is a most fascinating subject; I welcome the new appeal that is being launched and love reading all the posts on this site!!

                      Regards to all

                      John

                      Comment


                      • Hi John, I am on the train from Rhyl to euston At the moment. I tested sunset times in Rhyl last august and everything tallied with what H said. I have met a number of locals who remember mrs jones,her daughter,mrs Vincent,mrs Betty Davies who still lives in Rhyl.Margaret walker lived in sth kinmel at at the back of kinmel st .all of these people were convinced it was H who called on them on Tuesday 22nd august 1961.
                        My parents lived near Rhyl and we have their place since they died
                        , we go there often.Judge Gorman was clearly attempting to discourage the jury from a guilty verdict.lack of an alibi is not proof of guilt he said.also when they sought clarification after over five hours he said if you are not sure you should not find him guilty. N.
                        Last edited by Natalie Severn; 02-21-2011, 03:17 PM.

                        Comment


                        • Sorry about abrupt end of post John,am using iPhone on train and it went a bit wrong good to read your post..... Best norma

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Derrick View Post
                            Hi Ron

                            All Dr Lincoln would have known in 1992 was that STR typing was being developed and may shed more light on the samples in the future. Dr Lincoln is a scientist and not a fortune teller after all.

                            SGM didn't come online in the UK until 1995 which enabled the Government .....

                            Derrick

                            Hi Derrick,

                            I think voice over indicates that Doc Lincoln was speaking over 34 years after the event. It is not clear whether the event is when Hanratty attacked VS and MG or when he was convicted of murdering the latter. I had assumed that clip was filmed no earlier than 1996.


                            Ron

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by RonIpstone View Post
                              Hi Derrick,

                              I think voice over indicates that Doc Lincoln was speaking over 34 years after the event. It is not clear whether the event is when Hanratty attacked VS and MG or when he was convicted of murdering the latter. I had assumed that clip was filmed no earlier than 1996.


                              Ron
                              Hi Ron
                              Beg pudding, you're right.

                              This edition must be the second one. Jimarylin would know for sure. He put 2 versions up on YouTube, the second lot (with better sound and vision) must be the first edition...got me confused.

                              That would mean that he is speaking after the first round of SGM tests in 1995. Makes sense as the Home Office refused to test the samples until SGM came online.

                              Even so, Dr Lincoln would have no idea that the FSS would push the boundaries beyond what can and cannot be done with DNA evidence in using LCN.

                              Sorry for the confusion
                              Derrick

                              Comment


                              • A trip to Liverpool

                                Hi all

                                I have just returned from a wonderful trip to Liverpool and have not touched the computer all weekend. However - in Liverpool especially it is hard to escape A6 and Casebook references.

                                We stayed in a nice and comfortable hotel called The Feathers. On a walk shortly after our arrival we were delighted that a few paces from our hotel we found the magnificent Catholic Cathedral - knicknamed 'Paddy's Wigwam.'

                                On Saturday night we visited the famous Matthew Street to attend a gig at the Cavern Club. The club itself is no longer in the original basement of the Beatles era but in an ajoining basement a few doors down. We saw a band called Sinner Boy who are a fantastic tribute to the late Rory Gallagher. They played for three hours straight and we didn't stop bopping all night - help by a few beers! On leaving the club I happened to notice that we walked down a street named 'Whitechapel'. Echoes of James Maybrick and his association as an alleged ripper suspect rang in my ears! Blow me if we didn't go a few more paces when - just off Lord Street - I spotted Tarlton Street!

                                Sunday was spent taking in the sights on foot (we've been to Liverpool before but haven't really doine a trek on foot before). We must have walked five miles easily. It was a raw - cold Sunday morning and the city seemed deserted. Our friend - a local - joked that almost the whole of Liverpool suffers a hangover on a Sunday morning!

                                We had a lovely meal in a French Bistro called Jaques Bistro in Hardman Street - not too far from our hotel. If you are ever in Liverpool I can tell you that this is the place to go for an absolute feast of the most delicious food at a very good price. We then travelled through the Mersey tunnel to a pub close to our friends' home in Wallesey for an entertaining pub quiz.

                                The people of Liverpool are the most friendly and warmly welcoming people on earth. They really love their city and want all visitors to love it too. They really make an effort to make to feel special.

                                One thing I did wonder about was why Hanratty ended up in Scotland Road - quite a long way from Tarlton Street - when it was really quite close to Lime Street station.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X