Re-evaluation of the blood and silencer evidence

[Vertigo Swirl]

For anyone who's interested:


"What are the odds of someone who is not related to you having the exact same DNA sequence as you?
In other words, what are the odds of unrelated identical twins?

The odds are impossibly small.

The human genome has 3 billion base pairs, which are two of four nucleotides that are put together. That means to find the number, we would have to find 4^3,000,000,000. That would be the denominator (Bottom number in a fraction).

The number is impossibly large however, and no calculator today can tell you what it is. The closest I could get was 4^300 power, which was 4.14951557e180, which would be 4,149,515,57 followed by 172 0′s (the 4 with 180 places after it). Written out, it would be:

4,149,515,570,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000

That's just to the 300th power. 3 billion is 3×10^9 power, as opposed to 300, which is 3×10^2. That number is impossibly large, so your chances are well below any number you could possibly calculate".

[Caroline]

For anyone who's interested:


"What are the odds of someone who is not related to you having the exact same DNA sequence as you?
In other words, what are the odds of unrelated identical twins?

The odds are impossibly small.

The human genome has 3 billion base pairs, which are two of four nucleotides that are put together. That means to find the number, we would have to find 4^3,000,000,000. That would be the denominator (Bottom number in a fraction).

The number is impossibly large however, and no calculator today can tell you what it is. The closest I could get was 4^300 power, which was 4.14951557e180, which would be 4,149,515,57 followed by 172 0′s (the 4 with 180 places after it). Written out, it would be:

4,149,515,570,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000

That's just to the 300th power. 3 billion is 3×10^9 power, as opposed to 300, which is 3×10^2. That number is impossibly large, so your chances are well below any number you could possibly calculate".

The maths is above my head VS but well done you for working it out. I think we can safely say that a stranger sharing our DNA sequence is impossible.

[APRIL]

For anyone who's interested:


"What are the odds of someone who is not related to you having the exact same DNA sequence as you?
In other words, what are the odds of unrelated identical twins?

The odds are impossibly small.

The human genome has 3 billion base pairs, which are two of four nucleotides that are put together. That means to find the number, we would have to find 4^3,000,000,000. That would be the denominator (Bottom number in a fraction).

The number is impossibly large however, and no calculator today can tell you what it is. The closest I could get was 4^300 power, which was 4.14951557e180, which would be 4,149,515,57 followed by 172 0′s (the 4 with 180 places after it). Written out, it would be:

4,149,515,570,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000

That's just to the 300th power. 3 billion is 3×10^9 power, as opposed to 300, which is 3×10^2. That number is impossibly large, so your chances are well below any number you could possibly calculate".

I am seriously impressed Respect

[Vertigo Swirl]

LOL, I can barely multiply 2 and 2, but my googling and c & p skills are second to none.

[Caroline]

LOL, I can barely multiply 2 and 2, but my googling and c & p skills are second to none.

  - you should take credit, it's not like much is ever dished out here usually! 

[Vertigo Swirl]

- you should take credit, it's not like much is ever dished out here usually! 

Shucks, like George Washington I cannot lie.  This is the guy who deserves the credit:

Steven Silz-Carson
Certified Molecular Biologist, Smith College, grad immunology & biochemistry, CU

[Holly Goodhead]

This explains why in paternity testing its always 99.99% and not 100%.

https://dnacentre.co.uk/can-a-dna-test-ever-show-100-percent-probability-of-paternity/

With regard to this case I think it needs to be remembered that the scientists were using LCN DNA (LCN = Low Copy Number) where they're working with biological samples as small as 1/1000,000 the size of a grain of salt which are often degraded too and the sample is amplified up.  This can result in mixed profiles too as evidenced in this case.

The other complication with this case was that the victims' biological samples had been destroyed.  This resulted in PB providing a sample and SC's birth mother and another source which I think might have been the twin's milk teeth.

[Holly Goodhead]

Those here who have looked at the MM case will be familiar with the basics of LCN DNA and its limitations.

[Brietta]

This explains why in paternity testing its always 99.99% and not 100%.

https://dnacentre.co.uk/can-a-dna-test-ever-show-100-percent-probability-of-paternity/

With regard to this case I think it needs to be remembered that the scientists were using LCN DNA (LCN = Low Copy Number) where they're working with biological samples as small as 1/1000,000 the size of a grain of salt which are often degraded too and the sample is amplified up.  This can result in mixed profiles too as evidenced in this case.

The other complication with this case was that the victims' biological samples had been destroyed.  This resulted in PB providing a sample and SC's birth mother and another source which I think might have been the twin's milk teeth.

Am I correct in saying that grounds for one of his appeals failed miserably when the availability of a more sophisticated method for identifying DNA increased the number of markers identifying Sheila than the original testing had.

[Brietta]

Those here who have looked at the MM case will be familiar with the basics of LCN DNA and its limitations.

Absolutely.  But even so there are adamant deniers of the science which makes it clear that none of it is Madeleine's.

[G-Unit]

Am I correct in saying that grounds for one of his appeals failed miserably when the availability of a more sophisticated method for identifying DNA increased the number of markers identifying Sheila than the original testing had.

When was the 'original testing' carried out in your opinion?

[Holly Goodhead]

Am I correct in saying that grounds for one of his appeals failed miserably when the availability of a more sophisticated method for identifying DNA increased the number of markers identifying Sheila than the original testing had.

No you're not correct.

At the time of JB's trial DNA testing was unavailable.  All that was available was testing by way of blood serology which produces blood groupings.  Most will be familiar with the ABO groups.  In addition to this it was possible to identify enzymes and proteins but these are not statistically individuallising being shared by 8% of the white British population.  Eg given JB's relatives found and handled the silencer they were asked to provide samples and it was found that JB/SC's adoptive uncle shared the same blood groups as SC.

With the advent of DNA the silencer was reexamined.  There was no visible blood, we are told it was all swabbed away for the initial serology testing, hence it was analysed by way of LCN DNA testing.  The CCRC referred the case to the CoA as at this stage it was thought SC's DNA was not in the silencer but June's was along with an unidentified male.  This fitted the defence case at trial that SC used the silencer throughout the shootings and removed before shooting herself with the blood flake representing an 'intimate mix' of NB's and June's blood.

However when all the scientists for the defence and prosecution got together at appeal the appeal judges concluded the following:

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.

You will no doubt recall from the MM case that LCN DNA tests works off very small invisible to the naked eye cellular samples where it isn't possible to identify the source and all the issues with contamination.

In this case at trial it is known jurors unassembled the silencer and handled it alongside other blood stained exhibits and it was thought June's DNA may have been in the silencer from contamination as opposed to the shootings.

Sources: Dr Lincoln's report and Bamber v Regina.

[Holly Goodhead]

My view is that the silencer was not used by either JB or SC in the shootings.

The silencer was fabricated to secure a conviction imo.

IMO the defence lawyers muddied the water at trial with the 'intimate mix' theory.  Defence lawyers at appeal went on the same fools errand.

The third appeal hearing needs to demonstrate unequivocally that the silencer was fabricated because that is what happened imo.

[Myster]

My view is that the silencer was not used by either JB or SC in the shootings.

The silencer was fabricated to secure a conviction imo.

IMO the defence lawyers muddied the water at trial with the 'intimate mix' theory.  Defence lawyers at appeal went on the same fools errand.

The third appeal hearing needs to demonstrate unequivocally that the silencer was fabricated because that is what happened imo.

So despite having never used the rifle before, Sheila had the nous to unscrew the moderator from the end (which Jeremy had left on the previous night) and crawl on her hands and knees to place it at the back of the gun cupboard for some unknown reason, before shooting the family, then herself?

[Holly Goodhead]

So despite having never used the rifle before, Sheila had the nous to unscrew the moderator from the end (which Jeremy had left on the previous night) and crawl on her hands and knees to place it at the back of the gun cupboard for some unknown reason, before shooting the family, then herself?

JB said when he left the rifle from the bunny shooting it was sans silencer and sights.