Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

A6 Rebooted

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

  • Excellent post by Derrick
    It is worth noting that after the appeal hearing Roger Mathews and Badin Skitt were still utterly convinced of Hanratty's innocence,ie unconvniced by the DNA evidence. Roger Mathews expressing the opinion that his investigations had led him to believe that Hanratty should never even been charged with the crime so insufficient was the evidence against him.
    Regards Julie

    Comment


    • I found some more interesting info in Dead Centre by Robin Bowles, a book about the disappearance of Peter Falconio:

      In another body blow, Team Murdoch was informed that, in order to prove his LCN DNA findings, Dr Whitaker destroyed all three samples of the mixed DNA from the gearstick and steering wheel, leaving none for the defence to have analysed by an independent laboratory.
      I consider that this is clear proof of my contention that FSS deliberately destroy samples to prevent anyone else gainsaying their results. We're talking LCN here: however small the sample you can always cut it in half and test one part, leaving the rest for future analysis. There's absolutely no need to expend the entire sample.

      There was also some relevant testimony from another DNA expert, Dr Katrin Both:

      She told the jury that LCN DNA was still in its infancy and was not accepted in many jurisdictions, including the FBI in the USA. She said that Dr Whitaker was the only person in the world doing the LCN testing, and because 'it is his baby' there was no opportunity for peer review or independent testing. Therefore, it was suspect. The technique was fine for identifying people from bone remains, for example, but if the outcome was going to send a man to jail for life, it was too dangerous to use in criminal cases.
      For a good example of prosecution double-think, there was testimony from Carmen Eckhoff, one of the police forensics people:

      She vigorously denied any possibility of accidental or deliberate contamination of any samples, although she was forced to admit that the DNA of her then Head of Forensics, Dr Peter Thatcher, had been identified on the manacles...
      So in other words there was no contamination, but DNA from someone in the forensics lab was found on the sample. The only way both statements can be true is if Dr Thatcher was actually involved in the crime... There were also memos from senior officers expressing concern about the way the evidence had been handled and the high risk of contamination, but nevertheless the underlings still went into the witness-box and testified that everything was absolutely a-ok.

      Comment


      • Thanks Dupplin Muir,
        and this , involving Dr Whitaker and LCN DNA testing :

        Mr Stewart also asked Dr Whitaker if his high-tech lab would allow items of evidence to lie about together in open bags.

        Dr Whitaker said: "I would hope to avoid that but there have been cases where it has happened."

        There was the possibility of contamination, transfer of DNA from one item to another, he agreed

        from
        BBC, News, BBC News, news online, world, uk, international, foreign, british, online, service


        and this for those who refuse to believe that such things can and do happen in pathology labs!
        eg on December 29th the pathologist examined Hanratty"s trousers and excised them of semen on the fly.The following day he examined the VS's knickers and cut a piece from them.Where were they put? How were they bagged? Who bagged them?
        We don't have any idea of their evidential history....
        Last edited by Natalie Severn; 06-08-2011, 12:39 AM.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by julie q View Post
          Excellent post by Derrick
          It is worth noting that after the appeal hearing Roger Mathews and Badin Skitt were still utterly convinced of Hanratty's innocence,ie unconvniced by the DNA evidence. Roger Mathews expressing the opinion that his investigations had led him to believe that Hanratty should never even been charged with the crime so insufficient was the evidence against him.
          Regards Julie
          Hi Julie
          Your posts have been brilliant and it is good to see some fresh knowledge being brought to the forum.

          I am sure that you are also aware that even Basil Acott was a little surprised that the case got beyond the committal stage. After all, when interviewed years later, he always believed that the A6 murder was a so called gas meter job.

          It is only when in 1995 that DNA tests give no results do the scientists try to push nature beyond it what it can reliably yield. Why did the FSS have to do 2, maybe 3 rounds of LCN typing to try to discredit the findings of Matthews and the CCRC?

          The fact that the FSS managed to persuade the CACD, perhaps a year before the hearing was held, makes you wonder that there is something seriously bent about this case?

          Even during the Hoey appeal in 2007, Dr Dan Krane was not allowed access to the FSS's test data for LCN. How can LCN be allowed as evidence when the defence, jury or the judge cannot determine whether or not it is actually based on a solid scientific footing?

          Whitaker keeps basing his validation on 2 papers published in science journals in the early 00's. Yet he still has not received peer agreement on them.

          Even after Reed in 2009, LCN has not been validated below 200 picograms. So one must ask why call it LCN if it cannot be used below 200 picograms, the region it was developed for use in?

          Regards
          Derrick

          Comment


          • Even during the Hoey appeal in 2007, Dr Dan Krane was not allowed access to the FSS's test data for LCN. How can LCN be allowed as evidence when the defence, jury or the judge cannot determine whether or not it is actually based on a solid scientific footing?

            Whitaker keeps basing his validation on 2 papers published in science journals in the early 00's. Yet he still has not received peer agreement on them.

            Even after Reed in 2009, LCN has not been validated below 200 picograms. So one must ask why call it LCN if it cannot be used below 200 picograms, the region it was developed for use in?

            [/QUOTE]

            That peer agreement looks a very long way going by the strength of the criticism voiced so far!

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Natalie Severn View Post
              That peer agreement looks a very long way going by the strength of the criticism voiced so far!
              Hi Norma

              As far as Reed is concerned, LCN is a dead duck but I have a feeling that it has been used in the John Cooper trial recently held in Swansea.

              But Cooper had been on remand for nearly 2 years before the case came to trial so the LCN tests may have escaped the quantitation step that came in force on all LCN tests in the summer of 2009.

              We will have to wait for Coopers appeal to see what happens. Which may take years.

              My feeling is that the crimes that Cooper is convicted of were actually 3 seperate incidents carried out by 3 different person(s) and not Cooper.

              Derrick

              Comment


              • On the 11th September 1961 the Met Police Lab received, from the Buckinghamshire force, a blood stained suit, ie jacket and trousers. It had come from a laundry in Slough who had taken it on from a customer in the Dorney area. They contacted the police, obviously being concerned about the blood.

                The suit was only in the Met Lab for a short period of time and seems to have been ignored.

                The blood may have not been of the AB group credited to Gregsten and the owner may not have been an O secretor.

                Yet, importantly, Sweeney did say that hairs may have been removed from the suit and kept, although he is not sure.

                Mr Sweeney was keen to point out that the suit had nothing to do with Hanratty or Alphon so any hairs kept would not have led to contamination.

                It is here that Sweeney is trying to make capital out of his own unimportant evidence by suggesting that any hairs kept were not Hanratty's.

                It is quite amazing what has been glossed over in the Appeal Courts ruling of 2002.

                Derrick

                Comment


                • Hi Derrick,
                  Who is this geezer Sweeney?
                  Why that could be dramatic new evidence about the blood stained suit found at a laundry in Slough.But we need to know more to be sure it wasn't Gregsten's.
                  Cheers,
                  Norma

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Natalie Severn View Post
                    Hi Derrick,
                    Who is this geezer Sweeney?
                    Why that could be dramatic new evidence about the blood stained suit found at a laundry in Slough.But we need to know more to be sure it wasn't Gregsten's.
                    Cheers,
                    Norma
                    Norma
                    This geezer is, or more correctly, was Nigel Sweeney QC. He was the Crown's barrister at the appeal of 2002. He is now Sir Nigel and was elevated to the High Court as a judge in September 2008.

                    From what I can gather the Dorney suit was discarded by the Met Police Lab, possibly returned to its owner, shortly after being tested.

                    It is a tantalising scrap of news though.

                    Derrick

                    Comment


                    • Thanks Derrick---tantalising is the right word!
                      Best
                      Norma .

                      Comment


                      • For those that have not already done so may I suggest that they watch last nights 'Tonight' programme 'The Dangers of DNA' it is available now on ITV PLAYER
                        Regards Julie q

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by julie q View Post
                          For those that have not already done so may I suggest that they watch last nights 'Tonight' programme 'The Dangers of DNA' it is available now on ITV PLAYER
                          Regards Julie q
                          Thanks Julie q.That was really helpful and instructive.Of particular interest to me was the case of the taxi driver, Vincent Simpson, accused of murder on the basis of LCN DNA testing .His clothes had been stored by police in the same box as the murder victim's .He was acquitted but only after a seven week trial where presumably other strong factors came into play to prove his innocence.Those boxes containing the exhibits of Hanratty's trousers,VS's underwear etc were brought to and from Ampthill magistrates court and placed on tables each day by police .How easy contamination could have occurred as in the above case of just a few years ago.
                          I was interested too that the forensic scientists themselves were emphatic about the need for such excessively sterile labs to store the DNA in order that contamination did not occur as,they stressed,this was a very great danger.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Natalie Severn View Post
                            Thanks Julie q.That was really helpful and instructive.Of particular interest to me was the case of the taxi driver, Vincent Simpson, accused of murder on the basis of LCN DNA testing .His clothes had been stored by police in the same box as the murder victim's .He was acquitted but only after a seven week trial where presumably other strong factors came into play to prove his innocence.Those boxes containing the exhibits of Hanratty's trousers,VS's underwear etc were brought to and from Ampthill magistrates court and placed on tables each day by police .How easy contamination could have occurred as in the above case of just a few years ago.
                            I was interested too that the forensic scientists themselves were emphatic about the need for such excessively sterile labs to store the DNA in order that contamination did not occur as,they stressed,this was a very great danger.
                            Hello Iím back,

                            Well upon my word following last nightís ITV documentary on LNN DNA and the recent remarkable revelations by Derrick I can not stop the 1980ís football chant from going round in my head when your team is winning by a street:

                            ďItís all gone quiet,
                            Itís all gone quiet,
                            Itís all gone quiet over thereĒ.

                            And it wonít be too long before its silence over there.

                            Tony.

                            Comment


                            • That should read LCN not LNN but you do get mixed up occasionally with football chants especially if you are an Owls fan because most of our songs have been forgotten thanks to the dammed Arsenal.

                              Thank you, Derrick.

                              Tony.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Tony View Post
                                Hello Iím back,

                                Well upon my word following last nightís ITV documentary on LNN DNA and the recent remarkable revelations by Derrick I can not stop the 1980ís football chant from going round in my head when your team is winning by a street:

                                ďItís all gone quiet,
                                Itís all gone quiet,
                                Itís all gone quiet over thereĒ.

                                And it wonít be too long before its silence over there.

                                Tony.
                                Hi Tony - lovely to 'see' you

                                Two weeks ago - when Peterborough United were playing in the play-offs for promotion to The Championship - we played the mighty Huddersfield. They were unbeaten in 26 games and we were definitely the under-dog. They were melodious for the whole of the first half. After our first goal they hushed a little and four minutes later - after our second goal - stoney silence fell upon them.

                                Of course - we broke into:

                                'You're not singing
                                You're not singing
                                You're not singning anymore!'

                                Followed by:

                                'Shall we sing a
                                Shall we sing a
                                Shall we sing a song for you!'

                                We won 3-0!

                                Certainly Vic and Ron have stopped chirping.

                                Have a nice weekend everyone.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X