Re-evaluation of the blood and silencer evidence

[ISpyWithMyEye]

Because statistically it is possible for two people to share the same dna.  Often it is presented by way of a % which is close to 100%.  In paternity testing it is presented as 99.9%.

Fingerprint evidence is actually more reliable than DNA as no two people share the same fingerprints not even identical twins.

You’re wrong, Holly

Identical twins share the same identical DNA

https://atlasbiomed.com/blog/do-siblings-have-the-same-dna-the-facts-on-family-genetics/

Maybe you should tell the scientists on the link Ive given you that they’re wrong...

[ISpyWithMyEye]

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".

VS, it’s impossible for two people to share identical DNA unless they’re identical twins

I’ve recently had my DNA tested with my full biological siblings for hereditary reasons...


Although the results prove we share almost much of the same DNA and are full siblings, each child inherits different amounts of markers etc, hence why some siblings have blue eyes and brown eyes...

[Myster]

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

But Bamber told DB that he removed both sights and moderator because the rifle wouldn't fit in the cupboard with them attached, when police showed that it clearly would...

[Nicholas]

But Bamber told DB that he removed both sights and moderator because the rifle wouldn't fit in the cupboard with them attached, when police showed that it clearly would...

 

[Holly Goodhead]

You’re wrong, Holly

Identical twins share the same identical DNA

https://atlasbiomed.com/blog/do-siblings-have-the-same-dna-the-facts-on-family-genetics/

Maybe you should tell the scientists on the link Ive given you that they’re wrong...

I didn't say that identical twins don't share the same dna but

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn27411-police-can-now-tell-identical-twins-apart-just-melt-their-dna/

[Holly Goodhead]

But Bamber told DB that he removed both sights and moderator because the rifle wouldn't fit in the cupboard with them attached, when police showed that it clearly would...

No he said the rifle with the sights and silencer on wouldn't fit in the case not the cupboard.

Source: MF's trial testimony

[Holly Goodhead]

VS, it’s impossible for two people to share identical DNA unless they’re identical twins

I’ve recently had my DNA tested with my full biological siblings for hereditary reasons...


Although the results prove we share almost much of the same DNA and are full siblings, each child inherits different amounts of markers etc, hence why some siblings have blue eyes and brown eyes...

Statistically it is possible that's why evidence is presented by way of 99.9% and 1 billion to one.  Obviously it isn't possible to test everyone on planet earth.

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn27411-police-can-now-tell-identical-twins-apart-just-melt-their-dna/

[Holly Goodhead]

No he said the rifle with the sights and silencer on wouldn't fit in the case not the cupboard.

Source: MF's trial testimony

Re above.

[Brietta]

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

I do not have an 'opinion' I have been relying on information readily available on the forum; which is why I find it rather bizarre that you are questioning me about the original testing as you seem to be relatively au fait with the information already if the discussions you have taken part in are anything to go by.

Might I add this observation from a discussion you took part in at the beginning of 2014 which I think demonstrates your propensity for plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose ...
Snip
First of all you are distorting. The only shot determined to definitely be a direct contact shot was the fatal shot to Sheila. There were 4 other shots determined that it was possible they were contact shots. The second shot to Sheila was one of these shots.  Another was one of the shots to Nevill.  A third was the shot between June's eyes.  Testimony was that there was a slight chance this was contact shot but most likely it wasn't. The assessment was that 1 of the wounds to Nicholas was close range and it is POSSIBLE that it might even have been a contact wound.  The assessment was not that it definitely was a contact wound. The pathologist reported that the only definite contact wound was Sheila's fatal shot.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=3418.msg131846#msg131846
___________________________________________________________________________

T'was a good thread that one although a short one and in my opinion your argument took quite a drubbing on it which probably explains why you retired.
Sheila was shot at close range while still alive as were her father and her mother ... so I think there is little doubt as to why their blood ended up in the baffles well inside the moderator.

___________________________________________________________________________
Sorry ... I thought I was replying to Holly and not Gunit ... sometimes it is hard to tell the difference.

[G-Unit]

I do not have an 'opinion' I have been relying on information readily available on the forum; which is why I find it rather bizarre that you are questioning me about the original testing as you seem to be relatively au fait with the information already if the discussions you have taken part in are anything to go by.

Might I add this observation from a discussion you took part in at the beginning of 2014 which I think demonstrates your propensity for plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose ...
Snip
First of all you are distorting. The only shot determined to definitely be a direct contact shot was the fatal shot to Sheila. There were 4 other shots determined that it was possible they were contact shots. The second shot to Sheila was one of these shots.  Another was one of the shots to Nevill.  A third was the shot between June's eyes.  Testimony was that there was a slight chance this was contact shot but most likely it wasn't. The assessment was that 1 of the wounds to Nicholas was close range and it is POSSIBLE that it might even have been a contact wound.  The assessment was not that it definitely was a contact wound. The pathologist reported that the only definite contact wound was Sheila's fatal shot.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=3418.msg131846#msg131846
___________________________________________________________________________

T'was a good thread that one although a short one and in my opinion your argument took quite a drubbing on it which probably explains why you retired.
Sheila was shot at close range while still alive as were her father and her mother ... so I think there is little doubt as to why their blood ended up in the baffles well inside the moderator.

___________________________________________________________________________
Sorry ... I thought I was replying to Holly and not Gunit ... sometimes it is hard to tell the difference.

All I wanted to explore was the idea that 13 of Sheila's DNA markers were found by someone at some point. It keeps being mentioned but a cite has never been supplied. I thought you might know if it's true or not.

[Holly Goodhead]

I do not have an 'opinion' I have been relying on information readily available on the forum; which is why I find it rather bizarre that you are questioning me about the original testing as you seem to be relatively au fait with the information already if the discussions you have taken part in are anything to go by.

Might I add this observation from a discussion you took part in at the beginning of 2014 which I think demonstrates your propensity for plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose ...
Snip
First of all you are distorting. The only shot determined to definitely be a direct contact shot was the fatal shot to Sheila. There were 4 other shots determined that it was possible they were contact shots. The second shot to Sheila was one of these shots.  Another was one of the shots to Nevill.  A third was the shot between June's eyes.  Testimony was that there was a slight chance this was contact shot but most likely it wasn't. The assessment was that 1 of the wounds to Nicholas was close range and it is POSSIBLE that it might even have been a contact wound.  The assessment was not that it definitely was a contact wound. The pathologist reported that the only definite contact wound was Sheila's fatal shot.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=3418.msg131846#msg131846
___________________________________________________________________________

T'was a good thread that one although a short one and in my opinion your argument took quite a drubbing on it which probably explains why you retired.
Sheila was shot at close range while still alive as were her father and her mother ... so I think there is little doubt as to why their blood ended up in the baffles well inside the moderator.

___________________________________________________________________________
Sorry ... I thought I was replying to Holly and not Gunit ... sometimes it is hard to tell the difference.

What point(s) are you endeavouring to make? 

[Holly Goodhead]

All I wanted to explore was the idea that 13 of Sheila's DNA markers were found by someone at some point. It keeps being mentioned but a cite has never been supplied. I thought you might know if it's true or not.

I think those referring to '13 markers' are mistakingly using the term 'markers' instead of 'bands':

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.

From Bamber v Regina 2002 appeal

[Brietta]

All I wanted to explore was the idea that 13 of Sheila's DNA markers were found by someone at some point. It keeps being mentioned but a cite has never been supplied. I thought you might know if it's true or not.

              http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=258.msg4394#msg4394

[Vertigo Swirl]

VS, it’s impossible for two people to share identical DNA unless they’re identical twins

I’ve recently had my DNA tested with my full biological siblings for hereditary reasons...


Although the results prove we share almost much of the same DNA and are full siblings, each child inherits different amounts of markers etc, hence why some siblings have blue eyes and brown eyes...

And your point is...?

[Vertigo Swirl]

Statistically it is possible that's why evidence is presented by way of 99.9% and 1 billion to one.  Obviously it isn't possible to test everyone on planet earth.

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn27411-police-can-now-tell-identical-twins-apart-just-melt-their-dna/

You still haven’t explained why 1 billion to one is acceptable to you, but 1 trillion is accordimg to you beyomd absurd when there are only 7 billion people on the planet.