Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Ping

Expand Messages
  • John Houde
    Quiet for a month? is there a more active for sci group I wonder?
    Message 1 of 4 , Dec 23, 2009
    • 0 Attachment
      Quiet for a month?
      is there a more active for sci group I wonder?
    • nonarevers
      ... Well taking the bait. Here is the latest on the judicial use of LCN/Touch DNA in the UK As far as i can see they have not adjudicated on LCN (sub 100pg)
      Message 2 of 4 , Dec 24, 2009
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In forensic-science@yahoogroups.com, John Houde <jnh3@...> wrote:
        >
        > Quiet for a month?
        > is there a more active for sci group I wonder?
        >


        Well taking the bait.
        Here is the latest on the judicial use of LCN/Touch DNA
        in the UK
        As far as i can see they have not adjudicated on LCN
        (sub 100pg) but the undefined? gap between 100pg
        and bottomline of 1ng of standard PCR

        http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2009/2698.html

        England and Wales Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) Decisions Reed & Anor, R v [2009] EWCA Crim 2698 (21 December 2009)

        and usual knocking copy for those that go against the flow
        http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/foyle_and_west/8427509.stm


        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.
      • nonarevers
        I hope he doesn t mind my quoting here his reply to my contact with him Quote I quote the Court; 114. As regards this appeal, i) It is now established that
        Message 3 of 4 , Dec 24, 2009
        • 0 Attachment
          I hope he doesn't mind my quoting here his reply to my contact with him

          Quote

          I quote the Court;

          114. "As regards this appeal,

          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.

          ii) It has been long established that an expert can give evidence as to
          match probabilities and it must follow that such evidence can now be
          given where the LCN process is used for quantities above the stochastic
          threshold."

          As I think you are aware, the LCN process was specifically designed to
          deal with amounts of DNA BELOW 100pg (One of the two seminal papers
          cited in Omagh was "An investigation of the rigor of interpretation
          rules for STRs derived from less than 100 pg of DNA. Gill et al.
          Forensic Science International 112 (2000) 17-40"), so in effect the
          Court, perhaps without realising it, have accepted that I have been
          correct all along.

          Allan
          Professor Allan Jamieson

          End Quote


          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.

          --- In forensic-science@yahoogroups.com, "nonarevers" <nutteing@...> wrote:
          >
          >
          >
          > --- In forensic-science@yahoogroups.com, John Houde <jnh3@> wrote:
          > >
          > > Quiet for a month?
          > > is there a more active for sci group I wonder?
          > >
          >
          >
          > Well taking the bait.
          > Here is the latest on the judicial use of LCN/Touch DNA
          > in the UK
          > As far as i can see they have not adjudicated on LCN
          > (sub 100pg) but the undefined? gap between 100pg
          > and bottomline of 1ng of standard PCR
          >
          > http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2009/2698.html
          >
          > England and Wales Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) Decisions Reed & Anor, R v [2009] EWCA Crim 2698 (21 December 2009)
          >
          > and usual knocking copy for those that go against the flow
          > http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/foyle_and_west/8427509.stm
          >
          >
          > 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.
          >
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.