Current Claremont Murders Discussion & Edwards trial updates pt2

[Kurve]

Here is Claremont Murders - Part One
- Media
- The Bunker
- Hey Bret ...? Unexplained trial mysteries & CSK Supreme Court cliffhangers

 

[the dark knight]

There wont be a complete match for fibres, ever. It will always be a comparative match. "The blue fibre we examined shared the same characteristics as the blue fibres located from the VS" and then they will explain why.
Likewise for fibres they examined that did match.
They would have 100% examined the WAPOL uniforms and coveralls. Could you imagine been on the stand and giving evidence and the defense asks about WAPOL overalls...."Sh*t, I didnt think to test against them!!". No scientist would let this scenario happen, especially when they know that the defense will use WAPOL contamination as the defense.

That's what I meant. My bad. Personally, I don't see the likelihood of contamination too high at the moment. My concern with Path West is the administrative side of things.

 

[SophieHeso]

Hi everyone. I've been following this forum for ages. Really appreciate the coverage of the trial and discussion of the issues! Obvs some people here who really know what they're talking about.

 

[the dark knight]

Hi everyone. I've been following this forum for ages. Really appreciate the coverage of the trial and discussion of the issues! Obvs some people here who really know what they're talking about.

Welcome to the clan. Feel free to ask questions. That's what I do. We all have an opinion. Most of the time it's a really healthy debate and usually toys aren't chucked out of the cot.

 

[Sir_Loin]

Still raises the question if there was contamination how did it come to be BRE’s? Occam’s razor, in the absence of an explanation for this proposition there was no contamination.

 

[sprockets]

For the DNA evidence I've noticed almost none of the supporting facts you'd expect in this trial relating to: the process/kit used, equipment types and serial numbers, and reagents. There was one brief mention of an expiry date on a mixed reagent but that was it.

The manufacturer of the kit they used - Profiler Plus - even says they can provide certificates for court use.

View attachment 822751
I'd also have liked for the Profiler Plus user manual to be tendered as it explains in simple detail a lot of what we hear in court and try and puzzle out what and why. It would help Hall no end.

Personally I don't want courts going to those lengths. It should be enough for labs to have a written process in place and then it's ticked off as they go, even if the labs have to employ someone as a witness, who signs off on the testing. Just have the labs supply their paperwork for each sample. Defence can pick out the faults in the process from looking at the paperwork if they have to.

Having to explain the testing procedure in a trial for every individual sample is tedious, although the lawyers love it because it makes them dollars. When you consider most of the witnesses won't remember performing each test they did 20+ years ago it gets a bit ridiculous. 'Did you wear gloves? Of course I did.' Yada yada.

 

[sprockets]

Still raises the question if there was contamination how did it come to be BRE’s? Occam’s razor, in the absence of an explanation for this proposition there was no contamination.

Well if it was someone else they might be the person on trial, although there's enough other evidence to say BRE was the perp.

 

[kingswood71]

Still raises the question if there was contamination how did it come to be BRE’s? Occam’s razor, in the absence of an explanation for this proposition there was no contamination.

See now thats a good point!...Did they ask what was tested in the DNA lab in the 14 day window between KK samples and CG samples? That would be worth knowing as theoretically, what ever was tested then had more chance of contaminating CG samples than the KK DNA did.

 

[kingswood71]

Personally I don't want courts going to those lengths. It should be enough for labs to have a written process in place and then it's ticked off as they go, even if the labs have to employ someone as a witness, who signs off on the testing. Just have the labs supply their paperwork for each sample. Defence can pick out the faults in the process from looking at the paperwork if they have to.

Having to explain the testing procedure in a trial for every individual sample is tedious, although the lawyers love it because it makes them dollars. When you consider most of the witnesses won't remember performing each test they did 20+ years ago it gets a bit ridiculous. 'Did you wear gloves? Of course I did.' Yada yada.

Prosecution at the start did say it would be tedious and thorough. I guess they have to be in this case as the defense is relying on contamination and not on the actual results or the tests themselves. Just the opportunity for contamination.

 

[JezzaPerth]

Personally I don't want courts going to those lengths. It should be enough for labs to have a written process in place and then it's ticked off as they go, even if the labs have to employ someone as a witness, who signs off on the testing. Just have the labs supply their paperwork for each sample. Defence can pick out the faults in the process from looking at the paperwork if they have to.

Having to explain the testing procedure in a trial for every individual sample is tedious, although the lawyers love it because it makes them dollars. When you consider most of the witnesses won't remember performing each test they did 20+ years ago it gets a bit ridiculous. 'Did you wear gloves? Of course I did.' Yada yada.

My point is that the written process has not been tendered, nor has there been any evidence the lab is actually certified to do the testing. There have been vague mentions about NATA certification but nothing explicit such as tendeirng the NATA certificates.

When you get done for speeding or drink driving all the equipment is certified and evidence given to that effect. Plus evidence is given about when the equipmennt is tested and calibrated.

 

[kingswood71]

My point is that the written process has not been tendered, nor has there been any evidence the lab is actually certified to do the testing. There have been vague mentions about NATA certification but nothing explicit such as tendeirng the NATA certificates.

When you get done for speeding or drink driving all the equipment is certified and evidence given to that effect. Plus evidence is given about when the equipmennt is tested and calibrated.

Would be relevant I guess if he was challenging the results. In this case, they are not saying the results are wrong or the tests were wrong, just that they were contaminated. It may have been an agreed fact that Pathwest was accredited and that the testing machines were tested and accurate.

 

[JezzaPerth]

Prosecution at the start did say it would be tedious and thorough. I guess they have to be in this case as the defense is relying on contamination and not on the actual results or the tests themselves. Just the opportunity for contamination.

Tedious? You don't know the half of it! Bagdonavicius was asked the same question on all the electropherograms: "Can you look at the bottom left of the electropherorgram. Do you see initials "DG"? "Yes" Who is that? "Denise Galvin". Repeat ad-nauseum.

So the court is totally informed that Bagdonavicius thinks that Denise Galvin's initials are on many pieces of paper. Yet the court doesn't know that when those documents were generated it was from a particular piece of equipment using a specific process from a named kit manufacturer in a lab that was NATA certified at the time.

 

[JezzaPerth]

The Profiler Plus manual has specific instructions for avoiding contamination in a laboratory. This includes segregated work areas and rules for when material is transferred into and out of them.

SInce contaminaton is crucial to the defence, I'd have though a clear description of the work areas and processes at the time would have been lead. The best I've heard is the lab had a 'DNA area' and a storage area and a receival area - and then only incidentally.

There was no-one asked to go though the entire process with a floor plan of the lab and explaining what was done and why.

This is how the manufacturer says it should be done. What did PathWest do?

 

[kingswood71]

The Profiler Plus manual has specific instructions for avoiding contamination in a laboratory. This includes segregated work areas and rules for when material is transferred into and out of them.

SInce contaminaton is crucial to the defence, I'd have though a clear description of the work areas and processes at the time would have been lead. The best I've heard is the lab had a 'DNA area' and a storage area and a receival area - and then only incidentally.

There was no-one asked to go though the entire process with a floor plan of the lab and explaining what was done and why.

This is how the manufacturer says it should be done. What did PathWest do?

View attachment 823074

We might find out when the defense starts as Yovich mentioned that a report made reference to Pathwests risk of contamination.

 

[BonzaRam]

The Profiler Plus manual has specific instructions for avoiding contamination in a laboratory. This includes segregated work areas and rules for when material is transferred into and out of them.

SInce contaminaton is crucial to the defence, I'd have though a clear description of the work areas and processes at the time would have been lead. The best I've heard is the lab had a 'DNA area' and a storage area and a receival area - and then only incidentally.

There was no-one asked to go though the entire process with a floor plan of the lab and explaining what was done and why.

This is how the manufacturer says it should be done. What did PathWest do?

View attachment 823074

If we are not allowed to know where their new lab is, i don't like the chances of knowing what the interior layout is like.

"The court has heard PathWest was based at QEII in Nedlands then moved to Bentley but has since moved to a new location.

When Justice Stephen Hall asked where this location was, Ms Barbagallo told the court PathWest do not wish to make their new location public."

 

[JezzaPerth]

If we are not allowed to know where their new lab is, i don't like the chances of knowing what the interior layout is like.

"The court has heard PathWest was based at QEII in Nedlands then moved to Bentley but has since moved to a new location.

When Justice Stephen Hall asked where this location was, Ms Barbagallo told the court PathWest do not wish to make their new location public."

It's likely in or near Morley given Dr Turbett's phone number

 

[kingswood71]

Doing some reading of past days and noted this from day 37:
"Ms Barbagallo: In all that time you've spoken about, [AJM42 actual nail as opposed to an extract from the nail] was examined once on April 9, 1997?
Ms Ashley: That's correct."

Thats actually very significant. The actual nail container was only ever opened once in 1997 on April 9. This was 2 weeks after the KK DNA extract was last in the lab. It was opened and extracts created from the nail. These showed no signs of contamination.
Later in NZ extracts were made of the nail. Again no sign of contamination.
40 was never even opened at pathwest.
We have heard so much about extracts, that I kinda glossed over the nail April 9 thing!!
I cant see where the defense thinks contamination of the actual nail could even have happened. It doesnt fit with any evidence so far.
If you take it back to the simplest form and remove the extraneous noise, you are left with the basic facts:
1. KK sperm extract in lab in March 1997.
2. 42 opened in lab in in April 1997, 14 days or so after KK extract in lab.
3. 42 extracts no sign of contamination in 1997 tests.
4. 42 nail sent to NZ, extracts made. No sign of contamination.
5. 40 never opened.
6. KK and CG exhibits stored separately.
EDIT for the sake of completeness
7. KK PP test done by Webb on 24/9/1999.
8. 42 removed from yellow container and placed into smaller tube 23/4/2004.

 

[JezzaPerth]

Denise Galvin opened some of the nail containers before shipping to New Zealand. She took the nails out and photographed them. I can't recall if that included 42.

 

[JezzaPerth]

Doing some reading of past days and noted this from day 37:
"Ms Barbagallo: In all that time you've spoken about, [AJM42 actual nail as opposed to an extract from the nail] was examined once on April 9, 1997?
Ms Ashley: That's correct."

Thats actually very significant. The actual nail container was only ever opened once in 1997 on April 9. This was 2 weeks after the KK DNA extract was last in the lab. It was opened and extracts created from the nail. These showed no signs of contamination.
Later in NZ extracts were made of the nail. Again no sign of contamination.
40 was never even opened at pathwest.
We have heard so much about extracts, that I kinda glossed over the nail April 9 thing!!
I cant see where the defense thinks contamination of the actual nail could even have happened. It doesnt fit with any evidence so far.
If you take it back to the simplest form and remove the extraneous noise, you are left with the basic facts:
1. KK sperm extract in lab in March 1997.
2. 42 opened in lab in in April 1997, 14 days or so after KK extract in lab.
3. 42 extracts no sign of contamination in 1997 tests.
4. 42 nail sent to NZ, extracts made. No sign of contamination.
5. 40 never opened.
6. KK and CG exhibits stored separately.

Scientist going through how DNA samples were transported to NZ lab in 2004
Mr Bagdonavicius has now moved onto when he arranged for some of Ciara's fingernail clippings, and DNA extracts from the original clippings, to be sent to New Zealand for Y chromosome testing in March 2004.
Extracts from samples relating to Jane's case were also sent.
NZ DNA expert, SallyAnn Harbison gave evidence on what was sent and tested on Wednesday and Thursday.
The fingernail clippings sent to NZ (AJM41, AJM42, AJM46, AJM49) were taken out of their yellow top containers, and placed in sealed eppendorf tubes for transportation.
The fingernails were sent to the Institute of Environmental Science and Research along with 31 other vials that contained DNA extracts relating to Ciara and Jane's cases.

 

[kingswood71]

Denise Galvin opened some of the nail containers before shipping to New Zealand. She took the nails out and photographed them. I can't recall if that included 42.

I think the pics were of 41 and 46 when she did LCN on them.
She did take 42 out of its container on April 23, 2004 and put it into a smaller tube for transport to NZ.
I didnt think that was especially relevant as the last time we have any evidence of KK samples been tested prior to that was on "24/9/99 - Performed Profiler Plus typing on Karrakatta rape victim's reference sample and offender's sperm sample". (Webb statement).
Highly unlikely that the KK DNA was able to contaminate the CG 42 sample 4.5 years later

 

[kingswood71]

Scientist going through how DNA samples were transported to NZ lab in 2004
Mr Bagdonavicius has now moved onto when he arranged for some of Ciara's fingernail clippings, and DNA extracts from the original clippings, to be sent to New Zealand for Y chromosome testing in March 2004.
Extracts from samples relating to Jane's case were also sent.
NZ DNA expert, SallyAnn Harbison gave evidence on what was sent and tested on Wednesday and Thursday.
The fingernail clippings sent to NZ (AJM41, AJM42, AJM46, AJM49) were taken out of their yellow top containers, and placed in sealed eppendorf tubes for transportation.
The fingernails were sent to the Institute of Environmental Science and Research along with 31 other vials that contained DNA extracts relating to Ciara and Jane's cases.

See my reply above

 

[GreyCrow]

I cant see where the defense thinks contamination of the actual nail could even have happened. It doesnt fit with any evidence so far.
If you take it back to the simplest form and remove the extraneous noise, you are left with the basic facts:
1. KK sperm extract in lab in March 1997.
2. 42 opened in lab in in April 1997, 14 days or so after KK extract in lab.
3. 42 extracts no sign of contamination in 1997 tests.
4. 42 nail sent to NZ, extracts made. No sign of contamination.
5. 40 never opened.
6. KK and CG exhibits stored separately.

I understand the principle behind LCN and dont dispute it - but the with the bolded I can see why there are those concerned over ''patsys' etc

If there was no sign of contamination - why ''suddenly'' was some found X years later. Thats the argument that seems to dominate the set up theory

 

[kingswood71]

I understand the principle behind LCN and dont dispute it - but the with the bolded I can see why there are those concerned over ''patsys' etc
If there was no sign of contamination - why ''suddenly'' was some found X years later. Thats the argument that seems to dominate the set up theory

Jezza stated that it was mentioned that Whitaker may state that the result was so good that LCN may not have been required. This implies a couple of things: firstly, the actual BRE DNA may have been confined to 40 only which was never tested until 2008. If it had of been tested earlier, perhaps sending it to the UK may not have been required anyway. Been a broken nail, it is possible that it did indeed contain more skin cells as it would take a fair scratch to break the nail. Indeed the scientist stated "On previously viewing there was no actual nail in that container [just debris]". Maybe it was actually a small bit of BRE skin and not nail at all.
Secondly, perhaps there was DNA on both 42 and 40. The prior tests of 42 didnt have enough DNA to record a result. It may have been a few Pg's as opposed to Ng's. When the 40 and 42 were combined, the relative amounts of DNA contained on both may have been enough to push it into an amount of BRE DNA to record a result.
Of those 2 scenario's, I actually think the first one is more likely...that 40 actually held the DNA but unfortunately was never tested. But you never know, it could have easily been scenario 2.
The set up theory fails to understand the amounts of DNA required to get a reportable result. The Profiler Plus preferred 1-2.5ng of DNA. Less DNA and you get an increase in the stochastic effect which can make interpretation difficult. Remember 1ng of DNA comes from 152 diploid cells.
It was mentioned that when 42 was first tested there was a hint of a result, but not enough to be useful.
The lack of result for the tests done on 42 prior to the UK helps the prosecution a lot more than it helps the defense. IF 42 was contaminated in 1997 which is the only real window of opportunity, you would have expected to see a result as the sperm extraction was dealing with a decent amount of DNA. It would be difficult to argue that only a fragment of the DNA contaminated which wasnt enough to be detected in 1997/2001 and 2004, yet was a decent enough amount to be detected in 2008 with pretty much all loci giving a result (apparently, but will hear that next week.)
It defies logic. Science is logical.

 

[JWS2019]

All your links trace back to controversy in 2007 and reluctance by some, mostly Americans, to accept the validity at that time.

It is all irrelevant because Yovich isn't going to contest the LCN evidence. He's not even bringing in an expert witness to point out the inherent dangers of it. His entire strategy is to say that Pathwest is Pathetic and inept. He'll be making this very clear next week.

I agree he is sticking with his line of *ups. (Better option than trying to pick any random issue)

I also think he’s sitting back and letting potential inaccuracies surface for themselves then attacking from there. Seems to be working in his favour right now.

I do think the US have more advanced knowledge on this - and have more practice on it so I don’t think we can rule out research on LCN too quickly - we do entrust overseas experts on this so we can’t pick and choose.

It makes sense with the testing picking up more, that there are more opportunities to pick up outside sources as well. Hopefully in light of this the procedures where followed to a T.

 

[JWS2019]

The Profiler Plus manual has specific instructions for avoiding contamination in a laboratory. This includes segregated work areas and rules for when material is transferred into and out of them.

SInce contaminaton is crucial to the defence, I'd have though a clear description of the work areas and processes at the time would have been lead. The best I've heard is the lab had a 'DNA area' and a storage area and a receival area - and then only incidentally.

There was no-one asked to go though the entire process with a floor plan of the lab and explaining what was done and why.

This is how the manufacturer says it should be done. What did PathWest do?

View attachment 823074

I need a weekend to debrief on all of this J!! Thanks for providing

... and Hall I highly recommend Jezza would be an asset to your team!!

 

[kingswood71]

I agree he is sticking with his line of fu**ups. (Better option than trying to pick any random issue) I also think he’s sitting back and letting potential inaccuracies surface for themselves then attacking from there. Seems to be working in his favour right now.

Big difference between picking inaccuracies though than showing an opportunity for contamination of 40 and 42 by KK extracts.
The judge wont deal with "what if" scenario's. He will examine the evidence. The evidence (as presented so far) shows very little chance of contamination. Not even a smidgen of reasonable doubt...and we havent even heard the UK and the next NZ evidence yet. Nor the fibre evidence.