Current Claremont Murders Discussion & Edwards trial updates pt2

BonzaRam

Team Captain
Jan 21, 2019
451
1,490
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
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 :)
And in NZ they were taken out of them tubes and put into sandwich bags to be photocopied.

"The court has heard that when ESR examined AJM 42 - the left middle fingernail that the state says contains Mr Edwards DNA once combined with AJM 40 - they removed the actual fingernail from its sealed tube and placed it in a sealed plastic bag so they could photocopy it before placing it back in the tube.

Dr Harbison explained the tube containing the crucial exhibit was opened and wet and dry swabs were carried out. She said this involved swabbing the nail and the inside of the tube.
But then she told the court the actual nail was taken out of the tube and placed in the sealed plastic bag - which she described as "like the ones you buy in the supermarkets" - and then photocopied before being returned to the tube."
 
Last edited:

JWS2019

Senior List
Nov 30, 2019
259
487
AFL Club
Collingwood
And in NZ they were taken out them tubes and put into sandwich bags to be photocopied.

"The court has heard that when ESR examined AJM 42 - the left middle fingernail that the state says contains Mr Edwards DNA once combined with AJM 40 - they removed the actual fingernail from its sealed tube and placed it in a sealed plastic bag so they could photocopy it before placing it back in the tube.

Dr Harbison explained the tube containing the crucial exhibit was opened and wet and dry swabs were carried out. She said this involved swabbing the nail and the inside of the tube.
But then she told the court the actual nail was taken out of the tube and placed in the sealed plastic bag - which she described as "like the ones you buy in the supermarkets" - and then photocopied before being returned to the tube."
🤢 Those damn sandwich bags will never have the same meaning ever again!!
 

JWS2019

Senior List
Nov 30, 2019
259
487
AFL Club
Collingwood
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.
Agree to disagree I think it’s playing out quite nicely for yovich with whatever he has up his sleeve.

The prosecution doesn’t even have there sandwich bags together let alone disgruntled witnesses.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

kingswood71

Norm Smith Medallist
Jul 18, 2010
5,099
9,356
AFL Club
Fremantle
Other Teams
West Perth.
And in NZ they were taken out of them tubes and put into sandwich bags to be photocopied.

"The court has heard that when ESR examined AJM 42 - the left middle fingernail that the state says contains Mr Edwards DNA once combined with AJM 40 - they removed the actual fingernail from its sealed tube and placed it in a sealed plastic bag so they could photocopy it before placing it back in the tube.

Dr Harbison explained the tube containing the crucial exhibit was opened and wet and dry swabs were carried out. She said this involved swabbing the nail and the inside of the tube.
But then she told the court the actual nail was taken out of the tube and placed in the sealed plastic bag - which she described as "like the ones you buy in the supermarkets" - and then photocopied before being returned to the tube."
And the KK extract flew across the Tasman and contaminated it?? :)
 

kingswood71

Norm Smith Medallist
Jul 18, 2010
5,099
9,356
AFL Club
Fremantle
Other Teams
West Perth.
Agree to disagree I think it’s playing out quite nicely for yovich with whatever he has up his sleeve.

The prosecution doesn’t even have there sandwich bags together let alone disgruntled witnesses.
Okay lets agree to disagree....But I'd be interested to hear your views on which of any pathwest "errors" at the moment would fit with an opportunity for the KK extract to have contaminated the CG nail sample that was only opened on April 9 in pathwest 2 weeks after the KK extracts were in the lab.
I agree pathwest records were not perfect, but show me where and how the opportunity for contamination exists?
 

JWS2019

Senior List
Nov 30, 2019
259
487
AFL Club
Collingwood
Okay lets agree to disagree....But I'd be interested to hear your views on which of any pathwest "errors" at the moment would fit with an opportunity for the KK extract to have contaminated the CG nail sample that was only opened on April 9 in pathwest 2 weeks after the KK extracts were in the lab.
I agree pathwest records were not perfect, but show me where and how the opportunity for contamination exists?
Let me get back to you on that! I’ll try and put a list together on my thoughts 😄

Edit that smiley is supposed to be Norma not laughing!!
 

BonzaRam

Team Captain
Jan 21, 2019
451
1,490
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
And the KK extract flew across the Tasman and contaminated it?? :)
Umm you keep quoting how often they have been opened and handled, i just reminded ya of another time they were opened and handled.
The defense isn't claiming contamination at any particular point in time. It is pointing out how sloppy it all was throughout. As Yovich said in his opening statement, It is up to Judge Hall to decide if cross contamination is probable. All the DNA experts in the world can agree that the results are accurate but that doesn't remove the possibility of cross contamination at some point in time. The chain of evidence and record keeping could prove no cross contamination but hey we have seen evidence of that being very sloppy also.
There are a few aspect the Judge has to consider, the accuracy of the testing, the accuracy of the record keep and the believability of the witnesses.

Hey who tested the Kimono?
 
Last edited:

kingswood71

Norm Smith Medallist
Jul 18, 2010
5,099
9,356
AFL Club
Fremantle
Other Teams
West Perth.
Umm you keep quoting how often they have been opened and handled, i just reminded ya of another time they were opened and handled.
They defense isn't claiming contamination at any particular point in time. It is pointing out how sloppy it all was throughout. As Yovich said in his opening statement, It is up to Judge Hall to decide if cross contamination is probable. All the DNA experts in the world can agree that the results are accurate but that doesn't remove the possibility of cross contamination at some point in time. The chain of evidence and record keeping could prove no cross contamination but hey we have seen evidence of that be very sloppy also.
There are a few aspect the Judge has to consider, the accuracy of the testing, the accuracy of the record keep and the believability of the witnesses.

Hey who tested the Kimono?
I try to keep to scenario's where contamination could be possible. Opening the nail tube in 2004 in NZ would be an incredibly unlikely way in which to be contaminated. Firstly KK extract was not there. Secondly, even if 42 was contaminated from say the outside of the container by KK DNA that was lurking there, it would have likely have been identified in the 2 tests done at that time. In addtion, what would the likely-hood be that Ms Downe had recently touched the KK extract and then passed the KK DNA onto the outside of the smaller container of 42 or into the tube?
I agree that aspects of it has been sloppy, but Hall's decision re contamination v not contamination will factor in only the actual evidence related to the samples ie: when opened, when tested, where stored. It wont factor in unlikely scenario's and "what if's". The probability of cross-contamination in regards reasonable doubt will be decided by evidence related to 40 and 42 and their chain of evidence.

The kimono? Wasnt tested for DNA until 2016 as far as I am aware. It wasnt stored at Pathwest as far as we know.
 

JezzaPerth

All Australian
Dec 14, 2019
675
3,129
AFL Club
West Coast
I try to keep to scenario's where contamination could be possible. Opening the nail tube in 2004 in NZ would be an incredibly unlikely way in which to be contaminated. Firstly KK extract was not there. Secondly, even if 42 was contaminated from say the outside of the container by KK DNA that was lurking there, it would have likely have been identified in the 2 tests done at that time. In addtion, what would the likely-hood be that Ms Downe had recently touched the KK extract and then passed the KK DNA onto the outside of the smaller container of 42 or into the tube?
I agree that aspects of it has been sloppy, but Hall's decision re contamination v not contamination will factor in only the actual evidence related to the samples ie: when opened, when tested, where stored. It wont factor in unlikely scenario's and "what if's". The probability of cross-contamination in regards reasonable doubt will be decided by evidence related to 40 and 42 and their chain of evidence.

The kimono? Wasnt tested for DNA until 2016 as far as I am aware. It wasnt stored at Pathwest as far as we know.
It was tested only a few weeks before he was arrested just before Christmas. I think it was early November but I've not noticed anyone admitting to doing the testing. Blooms?
 

JezzaPerth

All Australian
Dec 14, 2019
675
3,129
AFL Club
West Coast
One of the TV stations showed some footage of the outside of the Pathwest Lab and it looked like The Harry Perkins Institute of Research, QEII in Nedlands. The new building opened in 2014.
Quite possible, but the Murdoch Perkins building sounds a better match with its PC2 laboratories (Though still a problem with a Morley phone number)

Perkins south
Perkins South


The Perkins South building is located on the Fiona Stanley Hospital Campus at Murdoch.

The facility can accommodate up to 363 research and academic staff.

The new building co-locates researchers from UWA, Perkins and the State in a mix of clinical research, offices and PC2 laboratories.
 

BonzaRam

Team Captain
Jan 21, 2019
451
1,490
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
Just listening to the podcast - Day 45 "Debunking Case Myths"

I noticed at the start they mention the media has a "Bunker" also... they mention a few questions about rumours etc that have been asked about in here, and elsewhere.

 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

kingswood71

Norm Smith Medallist
Jul 18, 2010
5,099
9,356
AFL Club
Fremantle
Other Teams
West Perth.
Just listening to the podcast - Day 45 "Debunking Case Myths"

I noticed at the start they mention the media has a "Bunker" also... they mention a few questions about rumours etc that have been asked about in here, and elsewhere.

The last bit was interesting about HH attack.
 

Countessa

Team Captain
Dec 11, 2019
470
1,317
AFL Club
West Coast
Quite possible, but the Murdoch Perkins building sounds a better match with its PC2 laboratories (Though still a problem with a Morley phone number)

Perkins south
Perkins South


The Perkins South building is located on the Fiona Stanley Hospital Campus at Murdoch.

The facility can accommodate up to 363 research and academic staff.

The new building co-locates researchers from UWA, Perkins and the State in a mix of clinical research, offices and PC2 laboratories.
Most likely one or the other and both are relatively new buildings. The exterior of building shown on the TV footage looked very modern.
 

kingswood71

Norm Smith Medallist
Jul 18, 2010
5,099
9,356
AFL Club
Fremantle
Other Teams
West Perth.
Imagine if this guy gets off because maybe the DNA was contaminated.
Would require a bit more than a "maybe" though.
Thats why the other circumstantial evidence is so important such as the fibres. Its the weight of the evidence that will support guilty or innocent.
"The jury may only consider alternative hypotheses which are consistent with the facts they find to have been established. They cannot have regard to any hypotheses or explanations which are inconsistent with the facts they have accepted (R v Gover (2000) 118 A Crim R 8)"
"In general, the prosecution does not need to prove any fact, or any piece of evidence relied upon to prove an element by inference, beyond reasonable doubt. The jury may properly draw the necessary inference having regard to the whole of the evidence, whether or not each individual piece of evidence relied upon is proved beyond reasonable doubt, as long as they reach their conclusion upon the criminal standard of proof (see Shepherd v The Queen (1990) 170 CLR 573; R v Spina [2005] VSCA 319; Beqiri v R [2017] VSCA 112 at [121], [130])"
"It is the function of the jury to determine the weight which should be given to the circumstances relied upon by the prosecution and whether, at the end of the day, the combination of circumstances which they accept are of sufficient strength to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt (see R v Kotzmann (No 2) (2002) 128 A Crim R 479)."
Judge in this case :)
 

JWS2019

Senior List
Nov 30, 2019
259
487
AFL Club
Collingwood
Okay lets agree to disagree....But I'd be interested to hear your views on which of any pathwest "errors" at the moment would fit with an opportunity for the KK extract to have contaminated the CG nail sample that was only opened on April 9 in pathwest 2 weeks after the KK extracts were in the lab.
I agree pathwest records were not perfect, but show me where and how the opportunity for contamination exists?
Acknowledging i have not read all the stuff you and jezza have uploaded on LCN.

My opportunity for contamination’s centre around:
1. Are records accurate dates etc.
2. How did other contamination’s happen (more so important one profile of another victim)
3. What are the exact dates ms Ashley reviewed kk and it’s extracts
5. When where nails tested
6. Discrepancies in tests are they logical (on no male chromosome or profile until final test)
7. Was AJ40 secured and never opened, can we rely on that? Was test out to review (regardless if opened or not)


A start of my questions here:

1. No one has independent memories due to the passage of time
2. Reliance of dates of testing and reviewing are/can be based on administration which has failed
3. Jane Rimmer contamination - I want to understand how this happened to see if it possible or not on Ciara’s
4. Uk stated it was quite a high number of contamination’s for the year in comparison to standards - does this conclude something was going wrong in the process? What was going wrong? how did it happen? Does it effect any other results from the same lab?
5. AJ42 did not detect male chromosomes - on this test what was the threshold? Was it reasonable that it didn’t pick up male chromosomes, but was able pick up a profile next test
6. AJ42 only detected victims profile - again thresholds, was it reasonable that it didn’t show yet was able to pick up next test
7. Carmella said they could not conclude if AJM42 or AjM40 was the holder of the DNA or if it was intact a combination of the two ? I would like this explained by a scientist
8. In mixing the two together, are we saying AJM42 was handled several times then combined with AJM40 to get a result ?
9. Ms Ashley stated the extra time of kk was tested 4 times over the year, what dates, what was the process and time difference in management of any of AJM42 and AJM40
 
Last edited:

Girlnextdoor

Team Captain
Mar 12, 2018
319
950
AFL Club
Carlton
Acknowledging i have not read all the stuff you and jezza have uploaded on LCN.

My opportunity for contamination’s centre around:
1. Are records accurate dates etc.
2. How did other contamination’s happen (more so important one profile of another victim)
3. What are the exact dates ms Ashley reviewed kk and it’s extracts
5. When where nails tested
6. Discrepancies in tests are the logical (on no male chromosome or profile until final test)
7. Was AJ40 secured and never opened, can we rely on that? Was test out to review (regardless if opened or not)


A start of my questions here:

1. No one has independent memories due to the passage of time
2. Reliance of dates of testing and reviewing are/can be based on administration which has failed
3. Jane Rimmer contamination - I want to understand how this happened to see if it possible or not on Ciara’s
4. Uk stated it was quite a high number of contamination’s for the year in comparison to standards - does this conclude something was going wrong in the process? What was going wrong? how did it happen? Does it effect any other results from the same lab?
5. AJ42 did not detect male chromosomes - on this test what was the threshold? Was it reasonable that it didn’t pick up male chromosomes, but was able pick up a profile next test
6. AJ42 only detected victims profile - again thresholds, was it reasonable that it didn’t show yet was able to pick up next test
7. Carmella said they could not conclude if AJM42 or AjM40 was the holder of the DNA or if it was intact a combination of the two ? I would like this explained by a scientist
8. In mixing the two together, are we saying AJM42 was handled several times then combined with AJM40 to get a result ?
9. Ms Ashley stayed the extra time of kk was tested 4 times over the year, what dates, what was the process and time difference in management of any of AJM42 and AJM40
Great thought-provoking questions, can't wait to see the answers from those who understand all this.That ain't me!🤔
 

kingswood71

Norm Smith Medallist
Jul 18, 2010
5,099
9,356
AFL Club
Fremantle
Other Teams
West Perth.
Acknowledging i have not read all the stuff you and jezza have uploaded on LCN.

My opportunity for contamination’s centre around:
1. Are records accurate dates etc.
2. How did other contamination’s happen (more so important one profile of another victim)
3. What are the exact dates ms Ashley reviewed kk and it’s extracts
5. When where nails tested
6. Discrepancies in tests are the logical (on no male chromosome or profile until final test)
7. Was AJ40 secured and never opened, can we rely on that? Was test out to review (regardless if opened or not)


A start of my questions here:

1. No one has independent memories due to the passage of time
2. Reliance of dates of testing and reviewing are/can be based on administration which has failed
3. Jane Rimmer contamination - I want to understand how this happened to see if it possible or not on Ciara’s
4. Uk stated it was quite a high number of contamination’s for the year in comparison to standards - does this conclude something was going wrong in the process? What was going wrong? how did it happen? Does it effect any other results from the same lab?
5. AJ42 did not detect male chromosomes - on this test what was the threshold? Was it reasonable that it didn’t pick up male chromosomes, but was able pick up a profile next test
6. AJ42 only detected victims profile - again thresholds, was it reasonable that it didn’t show yet was able to pick up next test
7. Carmella said they could not conclude if AJM42 or AjM40 was the holder of the DNA or if it was intact a combination of the two ? I would like this explained by a scientist
8. In mixing the two together, are we saying AJM42 was handled several times then combined with AJM40 to get a result ?
9. Ms Ashley stayed the extra time of kk was tested 4 times over the year, what dates, what was the process and time difference in management of any of AJM42 and AJM40
I like your thought processes :)
I can help with some of that...
1. We would take it as been accurate. This is based on that scientists record when they test things, especially in criminal cases. Mainly for situations just like this.
2. I dont know. But I do know a tree branch is a lot bigger to have in a lab or in storage than a finger nail :)
3 and 5. These were all given in evidence. The closest was 14 days apart.
7. The evidence so far suggests it was never opened until 2008 in the UK. prosecution stated same in opening.
Questions:
1+2. Yes but thats why all these documents have been handed in that show the dates of testing, what was done etc. They are a record of what the scientists did with each exhibit and when.
3. It may come up in the defense.
4. 4 plates contaminated. Okay, but 15 werent. The amplification that Pathwest used in 2001 likely was the culprit. Importantly, the plate for 42 wasnt contaminated.
5+6- I guess the answer this depends on the Ng or Pg level of detection of the tests themselves. The PP generally aimed for 1-2.5ng of DNA.
The Y-STR analyzer I am not sure of as I dont know what machine it was. The nails had CG DNA so picking them up just implies that enough of her own DNA was on them...as you'd expect.
7. The answer is two fold. Firstly, it is entirely possible that 40 actually held all the DNA but was never tested. 42 may never have had any.
Or secondly, when the DNA that was on 40 and the DNA that was on 42 was combined and then extracted, it allowed enough DNA to get a decent result. The scientific reason for this is that as the amount of DNA falls, the noise increases and this can result in difficulty working out what is a real allele. The combined result could have pushed the level of DNA above the stochastic threshold and thus alleles and their sister alleles were able to be seen. Carmel's answer is dead right...she cant say....Maybe it was all on 40. Maybe it was that they both had some and the combining of both put the level of DNA above the level of detection. I suspect Whitaker doesnt know either.
8. We dont know yet until this week, but I couldnt imagine that the UK lab handled it multiple times. They likely swabbed 40 and 42 and then combined the swabs into one extract.
9. This has been discussed already by Ms Ashley. She gave dates of testing of KK and 42. She never tested 40. The closest date of CG testing was 14 days or so after KK was in the lab in March. These dates are on record.
 

kingswood71

Norm Smith Medallist
Jul 18, 2010
5,099
9,356
AFL Club
Fremantle
Other Teams
West Perth.
You mean about looking at "intent" and that being the reason behind the sex offenders course or about the lawyers "horse trading"?
Intent yep. He was ordered to do a sexual offenders course for common assault. Kinda implies what the magistrate thought the intent may have actually been...
 

Top Bottom