Statistical probability anyone?

[Admin]

I would have thought the very imprecise act of removing the limited blood residues from the baffles would have contaminated all the baffles in such a manner that said contamination would have been invisible to the human eye and to the extent that when the silencer was tested for DNA several years later that human blood was undetectable.

[Holly Goodhead]

I would have thought the very imprecise act of removing the limited blood residues from the baffles would have contaminated all the baffles in such a manner that said contamination would have been invisible to the human eye and to the extent that when the silencer was tested for DNA several years later that human blood was undetectable.

Possibly but it doesn't seem to feature as a possible explanation for DNA being found throughout the silencer and not restricted to the distribution of blood with the scientists.  It doesn't explain how the strongest component of DNA was from June to the extent that the scientists concluded her DNA was in the silencer.

I'm inclined to see the jury contaminating the silencer with blood stained exhibits during deliberations.  They were told they could dissemble the silencer and empty the baffles.  They were also told to wear gloves when they handled exhibits containing blood eg June's nightdress but this was to protect jurors not exhibits.  It could be that jurors, with or without gloves, handled the silencer, baffles and victims' blood stained nightwear.  As LCN DNA testing is capable of detecting DNA as small as one millionth the size of a grain of salt that blood stained cotton (or other fabrics) fibres from victims' nightwear was present throughout the silencer thus contaminating it. 

Talk of DNA markers and legal threshold have no relevance to the CoA hearing.

[Holly Goodhead]

I would have thought the very imprecise act of removing the limited blood residues from the baffles would have contaminated all the baffles in such a manner that said contamination would have been invisible to the human eye and to the extent that when the silencer was tested for DNA several years later that human blood was undetectable.

From point 487 of CoA document:

"LCN DNA profiling tests do not provide any information about the type of body fluid tested or when it was deposited on the item"

I think its important to understand the limitations of LCN DNA:

http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/nyc-crime/judge-tosses-types-dna-testing-article-1.2065795

https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/assets/uploads/files/lawyers'%20DNA%20guide%20KSWilliams%20190208%20(i).pdf

[John]

The jury handling the silencer cannot account for the 13 markers attributed to Sheila, a statistical improbability.

[Holly Goodhead]

The jury handling the silencer cannot account for the 13 markers attributed to Sheila, a statistical improbability.

The CCRC referred JB's case to the CoA on the basis that they concluded SC's DNA was not in the silencer.

479. The Commission concluded:

"10.10 Whilst it might be arguable that the recent DNA tests do not establish that the source of the female DNA was blood, the Commission believes, as a matter of probability, that it is from blood because it was found deep within the silencer. Given the record of handling of the silencer by the scientists, the Commission does not believe that any possible contamination from them is likely to have been found that far down inside. Also, given that it is an accepted fact that blood was in the silencer in 1985, the Commission considers that it is much more likely that the DNA is from the blood found in the silencer at the time. Considering the length of time that has past and the fact that much of the blood was swabbed out for blood grouping, the Commission does not consider that the negative KM result strengthens the possibility that the DNA does not originate from blood. In any event, the Commission considers that the absence of Sheila Caffell's DNA is significant.[/b]

The CoA concluded that SC's DNA may have been in the silencer but it was not possible to conclude one way or the other:

497. We, therefore, consider the matter on the basis that the conclusions to be drawn from the DNA evidence are:

i) June Bamber's DNA was in the sound moderator at the time of the DNA examination;

ii) Sheila Caffell's DNA may have been in the sound moderator but it was not possible to conclude one way or the other whether it was; and

iii) there was evidence of DNA from at least one male.

The CoA concluded that overall the LCN DNA testing results were "completely meaningless"

506. We have no doubt at all that if this evidence had been placed before a jury, they would have concluded, as we do, that in accordance with the emphasised part of Mr Webster's report quoted above, the DNA testing results were rendered completely "completely meaningless".

Your post above is based on the following:

Seventeen of the twenty bands attributable to Sheila Caffell had been detected in DNA from the internal swabbings. Random chance would have suggested thirteen common bands would be found and hence since there was significantly more than thirteen, it provided some support for the DNA of Sheila Caffell being in the moderator.

For arguments sake even if the twenty bands attributable to SC had been detected in DNA from the internal swabbings it is unable to demonstrate:

- How SC's DNA came to be there

and

- Whether it was there as a result of direct contact or indirect contact by way of contamination

When I refer to contamination I am not referring to DNA from unrelated persons; I am referring to DNA from SC being deposited in the silencer from unrelated persons as a result of contamination eg FSS staff, court officials and jurors handling the silencer along with other exhibits eg SC's nightdress which contained blood and skin cells.  Bearing in mind that LCN DNA is capable of detecting DNA as small as a millionth the size of a grain of salt.

[John]

The CCRC referred JB's case to the CoA on the basis that they concluded SC's DNA was not in the silencer.

479. The Commission concluded:

"10.10 Whilst it might be arguable that the recent DNA tests do not establish that the source of the female DNA was blood, the Commission believes, as a matter of probability, that it is from blood because it was found deep within the silencer. Given the record of handling of the silencer by the scientists, the Commission does not believe that any possible contamination from them is likely to have been found that far down inside. Also, given that it is an accepted fact that blood was in the silencer in 1985, the Commission considers that it is much more likely that the DNA is from the blood found in the silencer at the time. Considering the length of time that has past and the fact that much of the blood was swabbed out for blood grouping, the Commission does not consider that the negative KM result strengthens the possibility that the DNA does not originate from blood. In any event, the Commission considers that the absence of Sheila Caffell's DNA is significant.[/b]

The CoA concluded that SC's DNA may have been in the silencer but it was not possible to conclude one way or the other:

497. We, therefore, consider the matter on the basis that the conclusions to be drawn from the DNA evidence are:

i) June Bamber's DNA was in the sound moderator at the time of the DNA examination;

ii) Sheila Caffell's DNA may have been in the sound moderator but it was not possible to conclude one way or the other whether it was; and

iii) there was evidence of DNA from at least one male.

The CoA concluded that overall the LCN DNA testing results were "completely meaningless"

506. We have no doubt at all that if this evidence had been placed before a jury, they would have concluded, as we do, that in accordance with the emphasised part of Mr Webster's report quoted above, the DNA testing results were rendered completely "completely meaningless".

Your post above is based on the following:

Seventeen of the twenty bands attributable to Sheila Caffell had been detected in DNA from the internal swabbings. Random chance would have suggested thirteen common bands would be found and hence since there was significantly more than thirteen, it provided some support for the DNA of Sheila Caffell being in the moderator.

For arguments sake even if the twenty bands attributable to SC had been detected in DNA from the internal swabbings it is unable to demonstrate:

- How SC's DNA came to be there

and

- Whether it was there as a result of direct contact or indirect contact by way of contamination

When I refer to contamination I am not referring to DNA from unrelated persons; I am referring to DNA from SC being deposited in the silencer from unrelated persons as a result of contamination eg FSS staff, court officials and jurors handling the silencer along with other exhibits eg SC's nightdress which contained blood and skin cells.  Bearing in mind that LCN DNA is capable of detecting DNA as small as a millionth the size of a grain of salt.

The document stated that the absence of DNA was significant, it didn't state there wasn't any.

In any event under English Law, unless there are 20 markers in common, a Court cannot recognise a match.  Regardless, the chances of the DNA not belonging to Sheila with 17 markers in common and taking into account the fact that she was not biologically connected to any of the other adults including Jeremy then those probabilities are millions to one and even you cannot argue that statistic.

As far as I can see, there are only two ways it could have got there.

1. It was blood back spatter sucked into the silencer when she was shot or...

2. It was a contamination from her blood which was swabbed from the outside of the silencer.

[Holly Goodhead]

The document stated that the absence of DNA was significant, it didn't state there wasn't any.

In any event under English Law, unless there are 20 markers in common, a Court cannot recognise a match.  Regardless, the chances of the DNA not belonging to Sheila with 17 markers in common and taking into account the fact that she was not biologically connected to any of the other adults including Jeremy then those probabilities are millions to one and even you cannot argue that statistic.

As far as I can see, there are only two ways it could have got there.

1. It was blood back spatter sucked into the silencer when she was shot or...

2. It was a contamination from her blood which was swabbed from the outside of the silencer.

Yes at the CoA hearing they concluded SC's DNA may have been in the silencer.  They were not able to conclude one way or the other.  Even if they were able to conclude SC's DNA was in the silencer it wouldn't mean that it was there as a result of backspatter/blowback.  June's DNA was confirmed as being found in the silencer and yet when the blood group analysis was carried out in 1985 it did not identify her blood group?

You often make reference to:

"In any event under English Law, unless there are 20 markers in common, a Court cannot recognise a match".

I am not sure what you mean by this?  Are you able to provide any documentary evidence re the "20 markers in common" by way of a link? 

There's a plethora of info on the internet re DNA testing from reliable sources eg:

https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/assets/uploads/files/lawyers'%20DNA%20guide%20KSWilliams%20190208%20(i).pdf

http://www.cps.gov.uk/publications/prosecution/lcn_testing.html#_01

and there's no reference to "20 markers".  Please provide your source re "20 markers" or provide an outline explanation.  Are you referring to alleles and loci?

When DNA evidence is used at a criminal trial it is expressed along the lines of 99.7% of the population do not share the defendant's DNA found at the soc.  Nothing to do with "20 markers"?

The CoA concluded that the flake of blood tested and used at JB's trial as follows:

501. The DNA was certainly not from the flake of blood removed for blood grouping purposes and whilst some or all of the DNA that was found within the moderator may have originated from blood, a conclusion that it all did is not one that can be properly drawn.

It is not known whose blood was on the outside of the silencer:

75. Traces of blood in the form of smears were found in three places on the outside of the moderator: on the flat surface at the muzzle end, in the knurled end and in the ridge at the gun end of the device. The blood on the outside of the moderator was confirmed to be of human origin but there were insufficient quantities to permit grouping analysis.

As DNA testing was not envisaged in 1985/86 the potential for contamination from a number of sources existed:

504. Mr Webster then reviewed in detail the history of the handling of the moderator and the various opportunities for contamination. He considered the fact that Dr Lincoln had taken out all the baffles and tested them all. He referred to the fact that both Mr Hayward and Mr Fletcher had handled the moderator in the witness box, a place where other exhibits were produced without any precautions being taken to avoid contact. He pointed to the fact that the judge specifically told the jury that they could "empty the baffles out later" and that it could not be established what use had been made of the moderator by the jury during their deliberations or what other exhibits may have been in their possession. He observed that the judge had told the jury that if they handled any of the clothing, they should put on plastic gloves for their own protection, thus giving rise to the possibility that blood stained items were examined by the jury with no precautions being taken to ensure that if they then went to handle the baffles there was not contamination.

[John]

To answer your question Holly, can I direct you to the following government website and in particular its references to the 20 markers which the poliice have to match under UK Law.

http://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/252885/NDNAD_Annual_Report_2012-13.pdf

1.1 About
the National DNA Database
The National DNA Database holds electronic DNA records (DNA profiles) taken from individuals and
crime scenes and provides the police with matches linking an individual to a crime scene. Since it
was set up in 1995 the NDNAD has
produced more than 446,000 matches to crimes.
DNA profiles
The NDNAD holds 2 types of DNA profile:
1. Individuals
The police take a DNA sample from every arrested individual, using a swab on the inside of the
cheek. The DNA sample is then sent to an accredited laboratory, which analyses the sample to
produce a DNA profile
–
a string of 20 numbers representing only a tiny fraction of that individual’s
DNA, but which allows that individual to be identified (the chance of two unrelated individuals
having the same DNA profile is more than a billion to one).


NDNAD matches
The database searches the DNA profiles from crimes against the DNA profiles from individuals. A
match occurs when the 20 numbers (and gender marker) representing an individual’s DNA are an
exact match to the 20 numbers representing the DNA left at the crime scene. 

http://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/252885/NDNAD_Annual_Report_2012-13.pdf

[Holly Goodhead]

To answer your question Holly, can I direct you to the following government website and in particular its references to the 20 markers which the poliice have to match under UK Law.

http://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/252885/NDNAD_Annual_Report_2012-13.pdf

1.1 About
the National DNA Database
The National DNA Database holds electronic DNA records (DNA profiles) taken from individuals and
crime scenes and provides the police with matches linking an individual to a crime scene. Since it
was set up in 1995 the NDNAD has
produced more than 446,000 matches to crimes.
DNA profiles
The NDNAD holds 2 types of DNA profile:
1. Individuals
The police take a DNA sample from every arrested individual, using a swab on the inside of the
cheek. The DNA sample is then sent to an accredited laboratory, which analyses the sample to
produce a DNA profile
–
a string of 20 numbers representing only a tiny fraction of that individual’s
DNA, but which allows that individual to be identified (the chance of two unrelated individuals
having the same DNA profile is more than a billion to one).


NDNAD matches
The database searches the DNA profiles from crimes against the DNA profiles from individuals. A
match occurs when the 20 numbers (and gender marker) representing an individual’s DNA are an
exact match to the 20 numbersrepresenting the DNA left at the crime scene. 

http://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/252885/NDNAD_Annual_Report_2012-13.pdf

  John

I see where you are coming from now but the "20 markers" you refer to are in fact "20 numbers (and gender marker)" and have nothing to do with the analysis of an individual's DNA.  It is a numbering system used for storing, retrieving and matching DNA held within the DNA database with DNA gathered from a soc etc. 

I think there is perhaps some confusion with the CoA document where it refers to "20 bands" as follows but "20 bands" and "20 numbers (and gender marker)" are entirely unconnected:

496. In the interpretation of the results, Dr Clayton called on behalf of the appellant and Miss Groombridge, called on behalf of the prosecution disagreed to a limited extent. Both agreed that Sheila Caffell could have contributed to this mixture of DNA but Miss Groombridge was prepared to go further and say that the findings provided support for the proposition that she had contributed to the mixture. She was, however, unable to determine the level of support provided. In her evidence to the court she explained her reasoning. Seventeen of the twenty bands attributable to Sheila Caffell had been detected in DNA from the internal swabbings. Random chance would have suggested thirteen common bands would be found and hence since there was significantly more than thirteen, it provided some support for the DNA of Sheila Caffell being in the moderator. However, Miss Groombridge was unable to perform any sort of statistical evaluation of the likelihood of this happening and hence unable to assess the strength of the support. Dr Clayton, whilst acknowledging the respect that he had for Miss Groombridge's views and whilst recognising the possible validity of the point that she made, felt that it was unsafe to draw any such conclusion. Whilst we recognise that there may very well be merit in Miss Groombridge's evidence in this regard, we doubt very much whether a jury would have been prepared to place any significant reliance upon it so that it might have altered any view which they otherwise would have reached.

[John]

John

I see where you are coming from now but the "20 markers" you refer to are in fact "20 numbers (and gender marker)" and have nothing to do with the analysis of an individual's DNA.  It is a numbering system used for storing, retrieving and matching DNA held within the DNA database with DNA gathered from a soc etc. 

I think there is perhaps some confusion with the CoA document where it refers to "20 bands" as follows but "20 bands" and "20 numbers (and gender marker)" are entirely unconnected:

496. In the interpretation of the results, Dr Clayton called on behalf of the appellant and Miss Groombridge, called on behalf of the prosecution disagreed to a limited extent. Both agreed that Sheila Caffell could have contributed to this mixture of DNA but Miss Groombridge was prepared to go further and say that the findings provided support for the proposition that she had contributed to the mixture. She was, however, unable to determine the level of support provided. In her evidence to the court she explained her reasoning. Seventeen of the twenty bands attributable to Sheila Caffell had been detected in DNA from the internal swabbings. Random chance would have suggested thirteen common bands would be found and hence since there was significantly more than thirteen, it provided some support for the DNA of Sheila Caffell being in the moderator. However, Miss Groombridge was unable to perform any sort of statistical evaluation of the likelihood of this happening and hence unable to assess the strength of the support. Dr Clayton, whilst acknowledging the respect that he had for Miss Groombridge's views and whilst recognising the possible validity of the point that she made, felt that it was unsafe to draw any such conclusion. Whilst we recognise that there may very well be merit in Miss Groombridge's evidence in this regard, we doubt very much whether a jury would have been prepared to place any significant reliance upon it so that it might have altered any view which they otherwise would have reached.

Holly, I agree, it has become the norm to casually use various terminology when considering DNA matches.  However, this is how the criminal justice system works, you need 20 numbers or 10 pairs of markers, if you like, for a 'legal' match, I cannot put it any clearer.  In the Bamber case I believe there was a 17/20 match to Sheila from samples taken from the innermost silencer baffles which in most countries represents a positive match since the chances of coincidence are many millions to one against.  UK law does not consider a 17/20 result to be a match thus why we have the Court of Appeal ruling.

In the world of probabilities however, a match was an almost dead cert!

[Holly Goodhead]

Holly, this is how the criminal justice system works, you need 20 numbers or 10 pairs of markers if you like for a 'legal' match.  In the Bamber case I believe there were 17/20 which in anyone's terminology represents a match.

The 20 numbers are simply an identification code used with the DNA database.   

The terminology is very important.  The words "numbers" "markers" and "bands" in the context of what we are discussing are not interchangeable.  They all have very different meanings.  The law and science are very precise, accurate and measurable.  "20 numbers" relates exclusively to a unique identifying code to an individual's DNA analysis/profile held on the DNA database.  It has nothing whatsoever to do with the underlying DNA biological material per se.  The 17/20 bands referred to in the CoA doc have absolutely nothing to do with the 20 numbers used within a DNA database.  When DNA evidence is used in a criminal trial it is expressed along the lines of 99.7% of the population (world) do not share the defendant's DNA found at soc etc.  It is not expressed along the lines of 17/20 bands attributable to SC (the victim) were found within the silencer 13 of which would be expected by random chance.

Eg anyone who has a bank account will have a unique account number that will enable all manner of transactions from all over the world to be connected to that account.  It is exactly the same with the 20 numbers used within the DNA database.  When a DNA sample is taken it is given a unique set of 20 numbers to identify it by.  If DNA is then at some point in the future gathered from a scene of crime and sent to a forensic laboratory for analysis the result is given a unique set of twenty numbers based on the DNA profile.  This will then potentially enable a match with the database. 

The vast majority of people are not on the DNA database as they have not been subjected by the police to providing a DNA sample.   

If you choose to believe otherwise that's your prerogative and posters will have to interpret the information and form their own opinions.  As far as I am concerned you are wrong and the science speaks for itself.

496. In the interpretation of the results, Dr Clayton called on behalf of the appellant and Miss Groombridge, called on behalf of the prosecution disagreed to a limited extent. Both agreed that Sheila Caffell could have contributed to this mixture of DNA but Miss Groombridge was prepared to go further and say that the findings provided support for the proposition that she had contributed to the mixture. She was, however, unable to determine the level of support provided. In her evidence to the court she explained her reasoning. Seventeen of the twenty bands attributable to Sheila Caffell had been detected in DNA from the internal swabbings. Random chance would have suggested thirteen common bands would be found and hence since there was significantly more than thirteen, it provided some support for the DNA of Sheila Caffell being in the moderator. However, Miss Groombridge was unable to perform any sort of statistical evaluation of the likelihood of this happening and hence unable to assess the strength of the support. Dr Clayton, whilst acknowledging the respect that he had for Miss Groombridge's views and whilst recognising the possible validity of the point that she made, felt that it was unsafe to draw any such conclusion. Whilst we recognise that there may very well be merit in Miss Groombridge's evidence in this regard, we doubt very much whether a jury would have been prepared to place any significant reliance upon it so that it might have altered any view which they otherwise would have reached.

[John]

This has been discussed at length on another thread so I do not intend to repeat it except to refer you to the COA decision, thus...

Seventeen of the twenty bands attributable to Sheila Caffell had been detected in DNA from the internal swabbings. Random chance would have suggested thirteen common bands would be found and hence since there was significantly more than thirteen, it provided some support for the DNA of Sheila Caffell being in the moderator.

Question to you Holly.  How many bands in common are accepted as a match under UK law?

[Holly Goodhead]

This has been discussed at length on another thread so I do not intend to repeat it except to refer you to the COA decision, thus...

Seventeen of the twenty bands attributable to Sheila Caffell had been detected in DNA from the internal swabbings. Random chance would have suggested thirteen common bands would be found and hence since there was significantly more than thirteen, it provided some support for the DNA of Sheila Caffell being in the moderator.

Question to you Holly.  How many bands in common are accepted as a match under UK law?

Its not the number of bands but the size - see first diagram - A, B and C match and D doesn't.  The DNA from the individual needs to match the sample as follows:

- Inclusions -- If the suspect's DNA profile matches the profile of DNA taken from the crime scene, then the results are considered an inclusion or nonexclusion. In other words, the suspect is included (cannot be excluded) as a possible source of the DNA found in the sample.
- Exclusions -- If the suspect's DNA profile doesn't match the profile of DNA taken from the crime scene, then the results are considered an exclusion or noninclusion. Exclusions almost always eliminate the suspect as a source of the DNA found in the sample.
- Inconclusive results -- Results may be inconclusive for several reasons. For example, contaminated samples often yield inconclusive results. So do very small or degraded samples, which may not have enough DNA to produce a full profile

The bands are created by a process called Agarose Gel Electrophoresis.  The gel matrix acts as a sieve: smaller DNA molecules migrate faster than larger ones, so DNA molecules of different sizes separate into distinct bands during electrophoresis - see second diagram.

Example calculation used for bands:

DNA concentration was determined by electrophoresis in 8% agarose gel. 1µl, 0.5µl and 0.25µl of ?phage/Bst EIIDNA were loaded in the gel to assist the quantification.

1. Add up the sizes of all ? DNA bands to calculate total size of ?phage genome

? genome= 48161 bp

2. Choose a band with a similar size to the plasmid DNA

3.675bp

3. Calculate the percentage of ? DNA genome represented by that ?band.

%= 3.675*100/48161= 7,63%

4. Calculate relative concentration of the selected band:
Stock solution of ? phage DNA contains 500 ng genomic DNA/µl
500 ng genomic DNA/µl* 7.63/100= 38,15ng of 3675 bp band/µl

See third diagram for above calculation

[John]

You didnt answer my question. 

To go back to the original point, under UK law there has to be a match to 10 markers.

Standard DNA profiling examines 10 markers in the DNA. Each marker has two sequences - one inherited from the mother, and one from the father.

On average, two people would probably have six or seven DNA markers in common out of 20, simply by chance, but the probability of someone matching more than 16 are millions to one.

The samples from inside the silencer matched Sheila by 17 out of 20, a remarkable result but still not good enough to establish a legal match under UK law.

[Holly Goodhead]

You didnt answer my question. 

To go back to the original point, under UK law there has to be a match to 10 markers.

Standard DNA profiling examines 10 markers in the DNA. Each marker has two sequences - one inherited from the mother, and one from the father.

On average, two people would probably have six or seven DNA markers in common out of 20, simply by chance, but the probability of someone matching more than 16 are millions to one.

The samples from inside the silencer matched Sheila by 17 out of 20, a remarkable result but still not good enough to establish a legal match under UK law.

I thought I had answered your question?  Perhaps the answer wasn't what you wanted to hear!

Your question in post #26 "How many bands in common are accepted as a match under UK law?

My answer in post #27 provides a full explanation and points out it is not the number of bands but the size of the bands.  I have gone on to explain how the bands are created and conclusions drawn.  I have also confirmed that every band from the suspect/victim needs to match the sample.  Its way too simplistic to think 17/20 matches is pretty damn close so the chances are its a match.  Its nothing like 85%.  Its like saying Sydney is closer to London than the moon is when both are miles apart.  A match would require London and London.

The COA doc states that Ms Groombridge (prosecution) was unable to perform any sort of statistical evaluation to assess the strength of support that SC's DNA was in the silencer.  Even if SC's DNA was in the silencer the fact contamination cannot be ruled out wound render any result meaningless anyway. 

Seventeen of the twenty bands attributable to Sheila Caffell had been detected in DNA from the internal swabbings. Random chance would have suggested thirteen common bands would be found and hence since there was significantly more than thirteen, it provided some support for the DNA of Sheila Caffell being in the moderator. However, Miss Groombridge was unable to perform any sort of statistical evaluation of the likelihood of this happening and hence unable to assess the strength of the support. Dr Clayton, whilst acknowledging the respect that he had for Miss Groombridge's views and whilst recognising the possible validity of the point that she made, felt that it was unsafe to draw any such conclusion. Whilst we recognise that there may very well be merit in Miss Groombridge's evidence in this regard, we doubt very much whether a jury would have been prepared to place any significant reliance upon it so that it might have altered any view which they otherwise would have reached.

Your post makes no sense.  You refer to markers when you need to be referring to bands.  You state "standard DNA profiling".  There's no such thing as "standard DNA profiling" used in criminal trials  In any event the test used at the COA was Low Copy Number (LCN) DNA testing.  You then attempt to apply your own crude methods of probability when the scientists used at the CoA have stated that it was not possible to perform any sort of statistical evaluation.  You make reference to "under UK law there has to be a match to ten markers".  This is completely wrong.  It is the size of bands and a sample can produce various numbers of bands but the bands produced by the gel electrophoresis need to match the suspects/victims bands exactly: see diagrams below.

I have no idea why you doggedly persist in trying to read something into this when the scientists and appeal court judges all found it "completely meaningless".