Question to members

[Caroline]

DNA evidence was not used in this case until the 2002 appeal.

Colin Pitchfork's case was the first in the UK to use DNA evidence and this was 1987.

Pitchfork was indeed the first case to use DNA profiling;

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/jun/07/killer-dna-evidence-genetic-profiling-criminal-investigation

[G-Unit]

It’s in the official court exhibits which were carried out by forensics.

If you don’t find it, I shall look for you – but I’d rather not as it’s time consuming

It’s definitely there, G-Unit, and is a crucial piece of evidence, hence why I assumed you’d know about it...

Like I say, trawl through, and if you can’t find it I guess I’ll have to add that to my list of tasks...

Thank you. It is, of course, a rule of the forum that evidence should be provided when claiming a fact, which I comply with. I have no intention of looking for the evidence to uphold your many unsubstantiated claims.

[Caroline]

Just to save you trawling through the scientific information, I’ve attached an extract to show you that DNA was used in 1985

I hope this helps you, G-Unit

I do wonder, though, how the forensic team managed to identify 13 of Sheila’s DNA markers in the blood sample from the silencer, back in 1985 if, according to you, it wasn’t possible...

How do you think they did that?

🤨

It was first described in 1985 by Alec Jeffreys, however, it wasn't actually used in a real life case until 1987 when Jeffery's helped the police find the killer of Lynda Mann and Dawn Ashworth by extracting a DNA profile from semen samples found on both victims, The police canvassed the local area taking blood and saliva from from over 5000 local men. Initially no matches were made however, it came to light that Colin Pitchfork had asked someone else to take his test offering some BS excuse and he was subsequently caught - his sample matched the profile and he admitted to the crimes.

[ISpyWithMyEye]

DNA evidence was not used in this case until the 2002 appeal.

Colin Pitchfork's case was the first in the UK to use DNA evidence and this was 1987.

So why did forensics bother to test the markers in the blood in 1985?

[G-Unit]

So why did forensics bother to test the markers in the blood in 1985?

Did they? Prove it!

[Holly Goodhead]

So why did forensics bother to test the markers in the blood in 1985?

The blood tests carried out in 1985/6 were based on blood serology which identifies enzymes and proteins.  But the enzymes and proteins groups are not statistically individualising unlike DNA results. According to Dr Lincoln who was a senior lecturer in blood group serology, 8% of the white British population share the same enzyme and protein groups:

                                ABO     PGM.             EAP.           AK.     HP

Nevill Bamber       O     PGM1+         EAP BA     AK1     Hp2-1
June Bamber        A     PGM1+         EAP BA     AK2-1  Hp2-1
Daniel Caffell        O     PGM2+1+    EAP B        AK1      Hp2
Nicholas Caffell    O     PGM2+1+    EAP B       AK1      Hp2
Sheila Caffell         A     PGM1+         EAP BA    AK1      Hp2-1

ABO = Blood Group System (Antigens)

PGM = Phosphoglucomutase (Enzyme)

EAP = Erythrocyte Acid Phosphatase (Enzyme)

AK = Adenylate Kinase (Enzyme)

HP = Haptoglobin (Protein)