Smolley wrote in message
news:k7KdnYP0mLrzltLXnZ2dnUVZ8iednZ2d@bt.com...
>
> "Paul Nutteing (valid email address in post script )"
> wrote in message
> news:7b8ek3F22fiilU1@mid.individual.net...
> > Only the corrupt "justice" system in UK and Oz
> > allows the admission of Low Copy Number "evidence"
> > into courts.
> > It is as scientific as the likes of horoscopes
> > and palm reading
> >
> >
http://www.shropshirestar.com/2009/07/03/jailed-rapist-to-challenge-dna-tech
> > nique/
> > Saturday, 4th July 2009
> >
> > Jailed rapist to challenge DNA technique
> >
> > A Telford man convicted of kidnapping a woman from a country park and
> > raping
> > her is to challenge a controversial DNA technique in a test case at
> > London's
> > Court of Appeal.
> >
> > Lawyers for Neil Garmson, 38, of School Court, Wellington, will argue
the
> > DNA technique used to help convict people across the country is so
flawed
> > it
> > can render convictions "unsafe".
> >
> > The technique involves DNA from minute samples of bodily matter left on
> > items, which have merely been touched by a suspect.
> >
> > Garmson, who was convicted of raping a woman he had kidnapped from
> > Granville
> > Country Park in Donnington, has launched an appeal, which is likely to
be
> > heard in October.
> >
> > He was found guilty of two .s, three robberies, two .ual assaults,
> > five
> > kidnappings and possessing an imitation firearm with intent to cause
fear
> > of
> > violence at Stafford Crown Court in 2007.
> >
> > He was given a term of indefinite imprisonment for public protection and
> > ordered to serve at least five years behind bars, later increased to
nine
> > years at the Court of Appeal.
> >
> > As well as kidnapping and raping the woman, Garmson was also convicted
of
> > kidnapping her partner, and in a separate incident, kidnapping a bar
> > manager
> > and two waitresses at knifepoint.
> >
> > The debate over DNA evidence will be a central feature in his appeal.
> >
> > At a directions hearing today, Lord Justice Thomas, sitting with Mr
> > Justice
> > Wilkie and Mr Justice Kitchin, said the case should be heard as soon as
> > possible.
> >
> >
> > ps
> > What they aren't telling you about DNA profiles
> > and what Special Branch don't want you to know.
> > http://www.nutteing.chat.ru/dnapr.htm
> > or nutteingd in a search engine.
> >
> > Valid email nutteing@fastmail.....fm (remove 4 of the 5 dots)
> > Ignore any other apparent em address used to post this message -
> > it is defunct due to spam.
> >
> >
>
>
>
> Standard methods for interpretation are inadequate for some LCN work, and
> new methods and safeguards are desirable. The presentation of this
evidence
> requires extreme care. For example, it should be made explicit to the
court
> that LCN work cannot be viewed in the same way as standard DNA work, and
> that issues of transfer and relevance, which are always pertinent, come
into
> even greater prominence.
>
>
Just the word DNA is common between LCN and standard
PCR profiling
The people who make money out of using the LCN
process, publish a few papers
Forensic Science International 123 (2001) p215-223
FSI 112 (2000) 17-40
FSI Volume 129, Issue 1 , 10 September 2002, Pages 25-34
in highly expensive subscription journals,
to give them the entry into court admissibility
in the UK - how corrupt is that ?
Anyone who can get copies of these articles, via the British
Library, or have deep pockets, can see that even their
own laboratory LCN level crime-scene simulation studies show
that touch DNA cannot be used for the purposes
of identity. So doubly corrupt, call the studies
validation studies , and they don't even have to
falsify the published results , knowing (wrongly) that
only their ilk would read the reports showing that
they are, in fact, invalidation studies.
The results are ALWAYS contaminated with
spurious inclusions - isn't stochastic a lovely word.
So without foreknowledge of who the suspect is,
they have no way of knowing what is real suspect's
DNA and which is intrusion.
So declare what doesn't fit their suspect, as the
contaminant DNA. At normal DNA profiling
useage of nanogram quantities , it is possible to repeat numerous times
to get a consistent result. Even crime-scene examiners,
with their protective suits/gloves and masks, always
contaminate the crime scene, at LCN levels, every
time they move, skin cells blow out from under the "protection".
But by definition
LCN is used when there is only picogram levels of
nuclear cellular material to test so one or two tests only .
In a properly conducted justice system touch DNA
would only be used for party tricks.
ps
What they aren't telling you about DNA profiles
and what Special Branch don't want you to know.
http://www.nutteing.chat.ru/dnapr.htm
or nutteingd in a search engine.
Valid email nutteing@fastmail.....fm (remove 4 of the 5 dots)
Ignore any other apparent em address used to post this message -
it is defunct due to spam.
|