From the person/system helped convict Bradley Murdoch

[Ext User(paul nutteing)]

From 77 million-to-one error down to 1 in 1 probability at a stroke

http://www.irishexaminer.com/pport/w...sgRE7XGnnjLnQs
gadLjt5C321I.asp
25/01/06
Expert matched semen sample to Wayne, then changed his mind
By Brian Carroll
A SEMEN sample found on Robert Holohan's body was a DNA match for Wayne O'
Donoghue with only a 77-million-to-one chance of error, a forensic expert
found.
Professor Jonathan Whitaker, from the Wetherby Forensic Science Facility in
West Yorkshire, examined a trace sample taken from Robert's hand after his
body was discovered dumped near Inch Strand on January 12 last year.
It was on the basis of this forensic analysis, together with the autopsy
findings of State Pathologist Dr Marie Cassidy, that the charge against
Wayne O'Donoghue was upgraded from manslaughter to murder.
However, semen traces found on a bath mat upon which Robert's body had been
lying in O'Donoghue's house were subsequently sent for testing and the same
forensic expert found this semen was not Wayne's.
"The semen on the bath mat wasn't Wayne's but was so alike that it threw
doubt on the first sample,'' a senior garda source said.
On this basis, the Director of Public Prosecutions ruled that there could
have been "cross transfer" between semen on the mat in the bathroom of
O'Donoghue's house and semen on Robert's body. Therefore, the DPP ruled the
semen evidence was inadmissible.
The DPP, following both forensic examinations, clearly decided this was not
evidence of sufficient reliability to be allowed go to the jury.
There was not sufficient clarity as to either the source of the semen or the
means by which the semen sample came to be on Robert's body.
This is why the jury in the Wayne O'Donoghue murder trial never heard
evidence of semen being found on the body.
"The initial report found there was a one-in-77 million chance that it was
anyone else's semen other than Wayne's.
"The semen found on a mat on which Robert had been lying was tested
afterwards and was not Wayne's. The DPP said there could have been cross
transfer and on that basis the defence would be able to get it ruled out,''
a source said.
....

What they aren't telling you about DNA profiles
and what Special Branch don't want you to know.
http://www.nutteing2.50megs.com/dnapr.htm
was on http://www.nutteing.50megs.com/dnapr.htm
or nutteingd in a search engine.

Valid email nutteing@fastmail.....fm (remove 4 of the 5 dots)
Ignore any other apparent em address used to post this message -
it is defunct due to spam.

[Ext User(Seppo Renfors)]

paul nutteing wrote:
>
> From 77 million-to-one error down to 1 in 1 probability at a stroke
>
> http://www.irishexaminer.com/pport/w...sgRE7XGnnjLnQs
> gadLjt5C321I.asp

Again we see that the article does not support your allegation or your
campaign against DNA evidence..


[..]

--
SIR - Philosopher unauthorised
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The one who is educated from the wrong books is not educated, he is
misled.
-----------------------------------------------------------------

[Ext User(ben.aust@gmail.com)]

Problem with forensic evidence is that laypeople trust it completely.
Most laypeople assume that if a scientific method is too complicated
for them to understand then it must be infallable.

People are gullible - millions of years of evolution have made us so.
There's a reason sheep follow each other around, it's safer to follow
the crowd than to do your own thing.


paul nutteing wrote:
> From 77 million-to-one error down to 1 in 1 probability at a stroke
>
> http://www.irishexaminer.com/pport/w...sgRE7XGnnjLnQs
> gadLjt5C321I.asp
> 25/01/06
> Expert matched semen sample to Wayne, then changed his mind
> By Brian Carroll
> A SEMEN sample found on Robert Holohan's body was a DNA match for Wayne O'
> Donoghue with only a 77-million-to-one chance of error, a forensic expert
> found.
> Professor Jonathan Whitaker, from the Wetherby Forensic Science Facility in
> West Yorkshire, examined a trace sample taken from Robert's hand after his
> body was discovered dumped near Inch Strand on January 12 last year.
> It was on the basis of this forensic analysis, together with the autopsy
> findings of State Pathologist Dr Marie Cassidy, that the charge against
> Wayne O'Donoghue was upgraded from manslaughter to murder.
> However, semen traces found on a bath mat upon which Robert's body had been
> lying in O'Donoghue's house were subsequently sent for testing and the same
> forensic expert found this semen was not Wayne's.
> "The semen on the bath mat wasn't Wayne's but was so alike that it threw
> doubt on the first sample,'' a senior garda source said.
> On this basis, the Director of Public Prosecutions ruled that there could
> have been "cross transfer" between semen on the mat in the bathroom of
> O'Donoghue's house and semen on Robert's body. Therefore, the DPP ruled the
> semen evidence was inadmissible.
> The DPP, following both forensic examinations, clearly decided this was not
> evidence of sufficient reliability to be allowed go to the jury.
> There was not sufficient clarity as to either the source of the semen or the
> means by which the semen sample came to be on Robert's body.
> This is why the jury in the Wayne O'Donoghue murder trial never heard
> evidence of semen being found on the body.
> "The initial report found there was a one-in-77 million chance that it was
> anyone else's semen other than Wayne's.
> "The semen found on a mat on which Robert had been lying was tested
> afterwards and was not Wayne's. The DPP said there could have been cross
> transfer and on that basis the defence would be able to get it ruled out,''
> a source said.
> ...
>
> What they aren't telling you about DNA profiles
> and what Special Branch don't want you to know.
> http://www.nutteing2.50megs.com/dnapr.htm
> was on http://www.nutteing.50megs.com/dnapr.htm
> or nutteingd in a search engine.
>
> Valid email nutteing@fastmail.....fm (remove 4 of the 5 dots)
> Ignore any other apparent em address used to post this message -
> it is defunct due to spam.

[Ext User(Rod Speed)]

ben.aust@gmail.com wrote:

> Problem with forensic evidence is that laypeople trust it completely.
> Most laypeople assume that if a scientific method is too
> complicated for them to understand then it must be infallable.

> People are gullible - millions of years of evolution have made us so.

Nope.

> There's a reason sheep follow each other around, it's
> safer to follow the crowd than to do your own thing.

That isnt how carnivores evolved.


> paul nutteing wrote:
>> From 77 million-to-one error down to 1 in 1 probability at a stroke
>>
>> http://www.irishexaminer.com/pport/w...sgRE7XGnnjLnQs
>> gadLjt5C321I.asp
>> 25/01/06
>> Expert matched semen sample to Wayne, then changed his mind
>> By Brian Carroll
>> A SEMEN sample found on Robert Holohan's body was a DNA match for
>> Wayne O' Donoghue with only a 77-million-to-one chance of error, a
>> forensic expert found.
>> Professor Jonathan Whitaker, from the Wetherby Forensic Science
>> Facility in West Yorkshire, examined a trace sample taken from
>> Robert's hand after his body was discovered dumped near Inch Strand
>> on January 12 last year.
>> It was on the basis of this forensic analysis, together with the
>> autopsy findings of State Pathologist Dr Marie Cassidy, that the
>> charge against Wayne O'Donoghue was upgraded from manslaughter to
>> murder.
>> However, semen traces found on a bath mat upon which Robert's body
>> had been lying in O'Donoghue's house were subsequently sent for
>> testing and the same forensic expert found this semen was not
>> Wayne's. "The semen on the bath mat wasn't Wayne's but was so alike
>> that it threw doubt on the first sample,'' a senior garda source
>> said.
>> On this basis, the Director of Public Prosecutions ruled that there
>> could have been "cross transfer" between semen on the mat in the
>> bathroom of O'Donoghue's house and semen on Robert's body.
>> Therefore, the DPP ruled the semen evidence was inadmissible.
>> The DPP, following both forensic examinations, clearly decided this
>> was not evidence of sufficient reliability to be allowed go to the
>> jury.
>> There was not sufficient clarity as to either the source of the
>> semen or the means by which the semen sample came to be on Robert's
>> body.
>> This is why the jury in the Wayne O'Donoghue murder trial never heard
>> evidence of semen being found on the body.
>> "The initial report found there was a one-in-77 million chance that
>> it was anyone else's semen other than Wayne's.
>> "The semen found on a mat on which Robert had been lying was tested
>> afterwards and was not Wayne's. The DPP said there could have been
>> cross transfer and on that basis the defence would be able to get it
>> ruled out,'' a source said.
>> ...
>>
>> What they aren't telling you about DNA profiles
>> and what Special Branch don't want you to know.
>> http://www.nutteing2.50megs.com/dnapr.htm
>> was on http://www.nutteing.50megs.com/dnapr.htm
>> or nutteingd in a search engine.
>>
>> Valid email nutteing@fastmail.....fm (remove 4 of the 5 dots)
>> Ignore any other apparent em address used to post this message -
>> it is defunct due to spam.

[Ext User(paul nutteing)]

<ben.aust@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1138315103.749186.149100@z14g2000cwz.googlegr oups.com...
> Problem with forensic evidence is that laypeople trust it completely.
> Most laypeople assume that if a scientific method is too complicated
> for them to understand then it must be infallable.
>
> People are gullible - millions of years of evolution have made us so.
> There's a reason sheep follow each other around, it's safer to follow
> the crowd than to do your own thing.
>
>
> paul nutteing wrote:
> > From 77 million-to-one error down to 1 in 1 probability at a stroke
> >
> >
http://www.irishexaminer.com/pport/w...sgRE7XGnnjLnQs
> > gadLjt5C321I.asp
> > 25/01/06
> > Expert matched semen sample to Wayne, then changed his mind
> > By Brian Carroll
> > A SEMEN sample found on Robert Holohan's body was a DNA match for Wayne
O'
> > Donoghue with only a 77-million-to-one chance of error, a forensic
expert
> > found.
> > Professor Jonathan Whitaker, from the Wetherby Forensic Science Facility
in
> > West Yorkshire, examined a trace sample taken from Robert's hand after
his
> > body was discovered dumped near Inch Strand on January 12 last year.
> > It was on the basis of this forensic analysis, together with the autopsy
> > findings of State Pathologist Dr Marie Cassidy, that the charge against
> > Wayne O'Donoghue was upgraded from manslaughter to murder.
> > However, semen traces found on a bath mat upon which Robert's body had
been
> > lying in O'Donoghue's house were subsequently sent for testing and the
same
> > forensic expert found this semen was not Wayne's.
> > "The semen on the bath mat wasn't Wayne's but was so alike that it threw
> > doubt on the first sample,'' a senior garda source said.
> > On this basis, the Director of Public Prosecutions ruled that there
could
> > have been "cross transfer" between semen on the mat in the bathroom of
> > O'Donoghue's house and semen on Robert's body. Therefore, the DPP ruled
the
> > semen evidence was inadmissible.
> > The DPP, following both forensic examinations, clearly decided this was
not
> > evidence of sufficient reliability to be allowed go to the jury.
> > There was not sufficient clarity as to either the source of the semen or
the
> > means by which the semen sample came to be on Robert's body.
> > This is why the jury in the Wayne O'Donoghue murder trial never heard
> > evidence of semen being found on the body.
> > "The initial report found there was a one-in-77 million chance that it
was
> > anyone else's semen other than Wayne's.
> > "The semen found on a mat on which Robert had been lying was tested
> > afterwards and was not Wayne's. The DPP said there could have been cross
> > transfer and on that basis the defence would be able to get it ruled
out,''
> > a source said.
> > ...
> >
> > What they aren't telling you about DNA profiles
> > and what Special Branch don't want you to know.
> > http://www.nutteing2.50megs.com/dnapr.htm
> > was on http://www.nutteing.50megs.com/dnapr.htm
> > or nutteingd in a search engine.
> >
> > Valid email nutteing@fastmail.....fm (remove 4 of the 5 dots)
> > Ignore any other apparent em address used to post this message -
> > it is defunct due to spam.
>

Very true.
I conducted a simple straw poll among 12
people a month back.
Asking "Do you think, when police take DNA profiles,
that each of those DNA profiles is unique ?"
To a person they each said yes, one emphatic
after discussion that there would be no point in them
doing so if it was not the case.

The UK obviously wants to prosecute, flasely,
as many people as possible.
Australia will only do it via an "extraordinary
rendition" process by saying to their own people
that it is technically too difficult. Get it
done in the UK and use the results to prosecute
see Bradley Murdoch. What is technically difficult
in going from 28 cycles to 34 cycles if you are
perverse enough to do so. ?

The average person sheds 2.5Kg of skin cells per year
(Source: Prof Sir John Krebs ) , for 31,556,926
seconds per year
translates to about 8o million picograms PER SECOND.
Every MICROSECOND ( a millionth of a second)
a human discards 80
picogram, more than enough to obtain a LCN profile.

I've also just read (abstract only )
http://tinyurl.com/9lf68
Forensic Science International
Volume 129, Issue 1 , 10 September 2002, Pages 25-34
The propensity of individuals to deposit DNA and secondary transfer of low
level DNA from individuals to inert surfaces. At least the co-author
Whitaker
(of news piece below) was honourable to
state in that FSI article
"The full profile of one (test) individual was
recovered from an (sterile ) item that they had
not touched while the profile of the person
having (10 second) contact with that item was
not observed."

So simulating say a totally innocent person shaking
hands with a person who later say handles a gun.

Human palm is about 1/200th area of the body
so assuming equal shedding over whole body then
every second a human sheds 5,000 times the
minimum for a LCN profile.

At LCN readable levels , 34 cycle amplification, the only way
an operative CANNOT contaminate a crime-scene
is if he does absolutely nothing in the way of
movement. Despite full body, feet, and face mask,
any body or limb movement will contaminate
to at least 0.5 metres from his body within 15 minutes. The only
movement that will not contaminate is mouth
movement ie talking under face mask.
Results on Table 1 , p171
of International Journal of Legal Medicine(2003) 117:pp170-174
Abstract, only , public domain access
URL http://tinyurl.com/bebbc
or as original
http://www.springerlink.com/
(jpwkkl45mwlzi3zj4nf01c2p)/app/home/contribution.asp?
referrer=parent&backto=issue,7,13;journal,18,553;b rowsepublicationsres
ults,646,1543;
Depicting UK forensic scientist with profile on
VWA,THO1,D8,FGA,D21,D18,D2,D16,D19,D3 of
(14,18)(9,9.3)(12,13)(21,25)(29,30)(14,15)(19,20)( 11,12)(13,13)(14,15)
or as Caucasian allele frequency percentages
(10.5,22)(14,30)(14,33)(19,7.5)(23,26)(16,14.5)(11 ,14)(29,29)(22,22)(13,26)
or as Afro-Caribbean allel frequency percentages
(8,16)(13,13)(13,21)(13,8)(18,15)(15,10)(16,7.3)(3 5,22)(27,27)(8,27)
55 times more likely white than black , also seen
in that only 6 out of 20 allele frequencies of "black"
are more than "white"
Nice to see he is well in the firing line for
some future unrelated false match like myself ,
my minimum allele frequency is 8 , his is 7.5.
Anything over 5 percent is part of the most likely
tranche of false matches.


What they aren't telling you about DNA profiles
and what Special Branch don't want you to know.
http://www.nutteing2.50megs.com/dnapr.htm
was on http://www.nutteing.50megs.com/dnapr.htm
or nutteingd in a search engine.

Valid email nutteing@fastmail.....fm (remove 4 of the 5 dots)
Ignore any other apparent em address used to post this message -
it is defunct due to spam.

[Ext User(Seppo Renfors)]

paul nutteing wrote:
>
> <ben.aust@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1138315103.749186.149100@z14g2000cwz.googlegr oups.com...
> >
> > paul nutteing wrote:
> > > From 77 million-to-one error down to 1 in 1 probability at a stroke
> > >
> > >
> http://www.irishexaminer.com/pport/w...sgRE7XGnnjLnQs
> > > gadLjt5C321I.asp
> > > 25/01/06
> > > Expert matched semen sample to Wayne, then changed his mind
> > > By Brian Carroll
> > > A SEMEN sample found on Robert Holohan's body was a DNA match for Wayne
> O'
> > > Donoghue with only a 77-million-to-one chance of error, a forensic
> expert
> > > found.
> > > Professor Jonathan Whitaker, from the Wetherby Forensic Science Facility
> in
> > > West Yorkshire, examined a trace sample taken from Robert's hand after
> his
> > > body was discovered dumped near Inch Strand on January 12 last year.
> > > It was on the basis of this forensic analysis, together with the autopsy
> > > findings of State Pathologist Dr Marie Cassidy, that the charge against
> > > Wayne O'Donoghue was upgraded from manslaughter to murder.
> > > However, semen traces found on a bath mat upon which Robert's body had
> been
> > > lying in O'Donoghue's house were subsequently sent for testing and the
> same
> > > forensic expert found this semen was not Wayne's.
> > > "The semen on the bath mat wasn't Wayne's but was so alike that it threw
> > > doubt on the first sample,'' a senior garda source said.
> > > On this basis, the Director of Public Prosecutions ruled that there
> could
> > > have been "cross transfer" between semen on the mat in the bathroom of
> > > O'Donoghue's house and semen on Robert's body. Therefore, the DPP ruled
> the
> > > semen evidence was inadmissible.
> > > The DPP, following both forensic examinations, clearly decided this was
> not
> > > evidence of sufficient reliability to be allowed go to the jury.
> > > There was not sufficient clarity as to either the source of the semen or
> the
> > > means by which the semen sample came to be on Robert's body.
> > > This is why the jury in the Wayne O'Donoghue murder trial never heard
> > > evidence of semen being found on the body.
> > > "The initial report found there was a one-in-77 million chance that it
> was
> > > anyone else's semen other than Wayne's.
> > > "The semen found on a mat on which Robert had been lying was tested
> > > afterwards and was not Wayne's. The DPP said there could have been cross
> > > transfer and on that basis the defence would be able to get it ruled
> out,''
> > > a source said.
> >
> > Problem with forensic evidence is that laypeople trust it completely.
> > Most laypeople assume that if a scientific method is too complicated
> > for them to understand then it must be infallable.

That isn't a problem - the REAL problem is people like Paul Nutteing
spreading misinformation and utter crap. Sometimes for the reason they
believe their own rubbish religiously - nothing to do with science or
KNOWING anything. Another is the reason that led to their belief -
poor comprehension skills.

As we see in the above article - Paul missed the essence of it
totally, only to get on his hobby horse misrepresenting DNA
information. What the article shows is a contamination potential - not
a cut and dried bit of evidence. There is nothing wrong with the DNA
testing itself, or its validity. Paul simply has not been able to
comprehend the issues.

> > People are gullible - millions of years of evolution have made us so.
> > There's a reason sheep follow each other around, it's safer to follow
> > the crowd than to do your own thing.

Wrong there too. ALL people CANNOT know ALL THINGS, and people do
trust those who DO know about their speciality, only Paul Nutteing is
not one of those people from either side of the fence.
>
> Very true.
> I conducted a simple straw poll among 12
> people a month back.
> Asking "Do you think, when police take DNA profiles,
> that each of those DNA profiles is unique ?"
> To a person they each said yes, one emphatic
> after discussion that there would be no point in them
> doing so if it was not the case.

How unscientific is it possible to get? The "straw poll" hasn't even
got the value of the bloody STRAW! It is totally meaningless - yet
Paul holds it out to have some mysterious "value".....
Pfffftttttt.......
>
> The UK obviously wants to prosecute, flasely,
> as many people as possible.

THAT is raw paranoia and a PHOBIA!

> Australia will only do it via an "extraordinary
> rendition" process by saying to their own people
> that it is technically too difficult. Get it
> done in the UK and use the results to prosecute
> see Bradley Murdoch. What is technically difficult
> in going from 28 cycles to 34 cycles if you are
> perverse enough to do so. ?

Again we see words, but do they have any coherent meaning? HELL NO!
Does even Paul understand what the hell he is on about.... I doubt it!

> The average person sheds 2.5Kg of skin cells per year
> (Source: Prof Sir John Krebs ) , for 31,556,926
> seconds per year
> translates to about 8o million picograms PER SECOND.
> Every MICROSECOND ( a millionth of a second)
> a human discards 80 picogram,

More drivel made to look impressive. Why use such a measure as a
"picogram" when the reference is to 80 MILLION? - A Picogram is one
trillionth (10^12) of a gram. So why not just say 80 microgram or 0.08
milligram/second? In any event WHO CARES? It isn't exactly relevant to
anything at all - certainly NOT for DNA testing.

> more than enough to obtain a LCN profile.

THIS is where we see the extent of raw BULLSHIT Paul Nutteing resorts
to....... apparently shedding skin cells will provide a
"liver-cirrhosis nodules profile" (LCN profile)!!! It is totally
meaningless drivel!

Oh and here is a lot more to use for meaningless jargon:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...&dopt=Abstract
>
> I've also just read (abstract only )
> http://tinyurl.com/9lf68
> Forensic Science International

.....and he may as well read a Phantom comic - it amounts to about the
same! It has no credibility.

[..]

> Depicting UK forensic scientist with profile on
> VWA,THO1,D8,FGA,D21,D18,D2,D16,D19,D3 of
> (14,18)(9,9.3)(12,13)(21,25)(29,30)(14,15)(19,20)( 11,12)(13,13)(14,15)
> or as Caucasian allele frequency percentages
> (10.5,22)(14,30)(14,33)(19,7.5)(23,26)(16,14.5)(11 ,14)(29,29)(22,22)(13,26)
> or as Afro-Caribbean allel frequency percentages
> (8,16)(13,13)(13,21)(13,8)(18,15)(15,10)(16,7.3)(3 5,22)(27,27)(8,27)
> 55 times more likely white than black , also seen
> in that only 6 out of 20 allele frequencies of "black"
> are more than "white"

What the hell are those numbers anyway - bingo numbers?

Ohhhhh.... so now apparently skin colour can be had from a forensic
DNA sample (assuming the above bingo number refer to DNA in some
way)...... who wrote that crap.... the KKK, National Action or like
neo-Nazi group?

It is NOT POSSIBLE to determine skin colour from DNA - it is pure
FICTION - or bullshit racism! A recent US program was shown on TV here
- where students did tests on a DNA sequence. They initially expected
to find the least difference (or closest match) to one of their own
phenotypes. They were WRONG. An African American lad had the best
match to an "Asian" girl of mixed ancestry. A male "white" student got
his right, but that was because he KNEW his ancestry a long way back.
He was closest to people from central Europe, but that was the origin
of his great grandmother. However it was not the rule but the
exception.

The noteworthy part was that *IF* common traits - eg skin colour -
were apparent in DNA, then the least differences would be among those
physically alike (the same phenotypes). NOT SO! There was LESS
differences between phenotypes than within phenotypes as should have
been expected IF such things as skin colour could be detected in DNA.





--
SIR - Philosopher unauthorised
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The one who is educated from the wrong books is not educated, he is
misled.
-----------------------------------------------------------------

[Ext User(paul nutteing)]

One of the best newspaper stories, I've seen, covering this dangerous ,
self-evident, unscientific claptrap
http://www.sbpost.ie/post/pages/p/st...391-qqqx=1.asp
Semen samples analysed using controversial method
29 January 2006 By Paul T Colgan
When gardai sent the semen found on Robert Holohan's body to Dr John
Whitaker for DNA analysis, they had good grounds to believe that the British
forensic scientist could tell them whether it belonged to the boy's killer.
Whitaker, based at the Forensic Science Service laboratory in Yorkshire, had
risen to prominence in recent years due to his development of a
ground-breaking method of DNA analysis known as low copy number (LCN).
Having employed the method for the first time in January 1999, Whitaker's
team now oversees around 80 LCN tests every week.
At his lab in Wetherby, Whitaker examined the first of the two semen samples
in the Midleton case early last year. The sample had been taken from Holohan
's left hand by state pathologist Dr Marie Cassidy.
Wayne O'Donoghue, who was last week sentenced to four years imprisonment for
the manslaughter of Holohan, had turned himself in the day after Holohan's
funeral last January and confessed to having accidentally killed the boy.
He claimed that he had lost his temper after the boy threw stones at his
car. He denied that he had ever intended to kill Holohan. If Whitaker's
forensic analysis established a link between the semen samples and O'
Donoghue, the 20-year-old's claims would have been open to serious question.
The LCN technique is a revolutionary one that has enabled scientists and law
enforcers around the world to revisit and solve crimes committed decades
ago.
In DNA analysis, small traces of DNA found in bodily fluids, fingerprints
and human tissue are ''amplified'' to the point where a match can be
established with a suspect.
In the conventional method, ''amplification'' of a sample's DNA
characteristics takes place 28 times.
With Whitaker's LCN technique, the process occurs 34 times.
According to Whitaker, every stage of LCN analysis is repeated twice to
ensure that results are not distorted. It is a painstaking process and his
analysis of the semen found on Holohan's body would have taken some time.
Whitaker's first results led the scientist to conclude that the possibility
that the semen could have belonged to anyone other than O'Donoghue was one
in 77million.
On receiving Whitaker's report, the Director of Public Prosecutions decided
that O'Donoghue should be charged with murdering Holohan.
The fact that O'Donoghue was at one stage suspected of abusing Robert only
emerged in court last week after Robert's mother Majella questioned why
semen had been found on her son's body.
''Our doctors have told us to try and get on with our lives but how can we,
knowing there was semen found on my son's body? she said.
O'Donoghue's solicitor has denied that his client is guilty of any sexual
offence and is understood to be considering taking legal action against a
number of newspapers which reported comments made by the Holohans as they
were leaving the court last Tuesday.
It is understood that Whitaker was asked by gardai to examine a second semen
sample - one taken from a mat in the bathroom of the O'Donoghue's home. O'
Donoghue had laid Robert's body on the mat after killing him.
The sample taken from the bathroom caused Whitaker some concern.
He found that the sample contained DNA that was not identical, but similar,
to that contained in the first. The possibility that ''cross transfer'' had
taken place forced him to reconsider his original findings.
He notified the authorities of this and retracted his earlier views on the
statistical likelihood that the semen belonged to O'Donoghue.
It is believed that following this, gardai sent the same samples to another
team of British-based forensic scientists for examination.
According to reports, these scientists also disputed Whitaker's initial
findings. The DPP decided that no mention of the semen samples should be
made in court.
The method used by Whitaker, while lauded by many in scientific circles as
an important break through, does have its detractors.
Last month, Whitaker was involved in the trial into the murder of backpacker
Peter Falconio in the Australian outback. Whitaker had been asked by the
Australian police to carry out tests on DNA found on handcuffs that were
used to tie up Falconio's girlfriend.
Giving evidence at the trial, Dr Katrin Both, an experienced forensic
scientist, said she had ''a large number of concerns'' about LCN.
''I think it [LCN] is very dangerous, she said. ''He's [Whitaker] pushing
science to its limits.
Both was grilled by the prosecution team and did later concede that Whitaker
's results were not spurious.
The judge in the case later concluded that LCN had a ''sufficient scientific
basis'' and the results produced by the British forensic scientist were
admissible.
The method, however, does not meet with universal acceptance in courts
around the world. At present, DNA evidence procured through LCN is not
admissible in courts in the US.
Detectives there are known to have used the method to establish leads, but
dare not take the findings before a judge.
Despite the work of Whitaker and a number of other forensic scientists, the
method is still deemed insufficiently accurate to be relied on in serious
cases and is capable of producing misleading or spurious results.
According to Dr Lawrence Kobilinsky, professor of forensic science at the
John Jay College of Criminal Justice in New York, unless the method is
refined to ensure higher reliability, it will not be used by law-enforcement
agencies such as the FBI.
''LCN is somewhat contentious and has been contentious for a number of
years, Kobilinsky told The Sunday Business Post.
''When it first appeared, the Brits took to trying to improve its
reliability so they could use it. It is unreliable at times but this doesn't
mean it can't be improved to the point where it could be used in forensics.
''There are different ways of carrying out low-copy number testing and the
FBI feels it is important to standardise the method. It can sometimes
produce spurious results, so they decided not to use it.
He said that, in some cases, important gene strands could ''drop out'' of
LCN data. In other cases, irrelevant and misleading genetic information
could appear in results.
''When you carry out LCN testing, you are boosting your sensitivity to such
high levels you start to see things that might not be relevant to the
evidence, he said.
End Quote

What they aren't telling you about DNA profiles
and what Special Branch don't want you to know.
http://www.nutteing2.50megs.com/dnapr.htm
was on http://www.nutteing.50megs.com/dnapr.htm
or nutteingd in a search engine.

Valid email nutteing@fastmail.....fm (remove 4 of the 5 dots)
Ignore any other apparent em address used to post this message -
it is defunct due to spam.

[tuesday]

What a complete scam it was in convicting Bradley Murdoch.Hopefully the new reward which is being offered for information regarding Peter Falconio's whereabouts will stir some action.

[Ext User(Tony Yates)]

"tuesday" <tuesday.5bveol@no-mx.phorums.com.au> wrote in message
news:tuesday.5bveol@no-mx.phorums.com.au...
>
> What a complete scam it was in convicting Bradley Murdoch.Hopefully the
> new reward which is being offered for information regarding Peter
> Falconio's whereabouts will stir some action.
>

Are you a mate of his are you? You know something about the case?

Apparently Murdoch told someone that a particular water drain was a good
place for storing dead bodies. Sounds like the kind of character you want
off the streets anyway.

[tuesday]

"tuesday" <tuesday.5bveol@no-mx.phorums.com.au> wrote in message
news:tuesday.5bveol@no-mx.phorums.com.au...
>
> What a complete scam it was in convicting Bradley Murdoch.Hopefully the
> new reward which is being offered for information regarding Peter
> Falconio's whereabouts will stir some action.
>

Are you a mate of his are you? You know something about the case?

Apparently Murdoch told someone that a particular water drain was a good
place for storing dead bodies. Sounds like the kind of character you want
off the streets anyway.

The person who said that was Brad Murdoch's ex drug partner James Hepi,who had a conviction for possession of over 4 kilos of dope dismissed because he offered to get some cigarette butts with Brads DNA on them.

[Ext User(Tony Yates)]

"tuesday" <tuesday.5bvskl@no-mx.phorums.com.au> wrote in message
news:tuesday.5bvskl@no-mx.phorums.com.au...
>
> Tony Yates Wrote:
>> "tuesday" <tuesday.5bveol@no-mx.phorums.com.au> wrote in message
>> news:tuesday.5bveol@no-mx.phorums.com.au...
>> >
>> > What a complete scam it was in convicting Bradley Murdoch.Hopefully
>> the
>> > new reward which is being offered for information regarding Peter
>> > Falconio's whereabouts will stir some action.
>> >
>>
>> Are you a mate of his are you? You know something about the case?
>>
>> Apparently Murdoch told someone that a particular water drain was a good
>> place for storing dead bodies. Sounds like the kind of character you
>> want
>> off the streets anyway.
>
> The person who said that was Brad Murdoch's ex drug partner James
> Hepi,who had a conviction for possession of over 4 kilos of dope
> dismissed because he offered to get some cigarette butts with Brads DNA
> on them.
>

Is police evidence tampering a rife practice generally?