Current Claremont Murders Discussion & Edwards trial updates

[Kurve]

Perhaps. And also urethral cells. But, the whole process back then was primitive according to what we have today, so it may not have detected his epithelial cells.

The KK rape/s samples weren't linked to the Claremont murder series until 2009. Do we know what year the swabs from the KK rape were examined to extract the offenders DNA initially?

 

[JezzaPerth]

The KK rape/s samples weren't linked to the Claremont murder series until 2009. Do we know what year the swabs from the KK rape were examined to extract the offenders DNA initially?

Early 1997 was the principal date. There may have been efforts earlier.

This is central to the defence claims. KK DNA was analysed in the weeks prior to the death of CG and could potentially have contaminated the CG DNA evidence received a few weeks later.

We do know the samples were stored in separate boxes 8,11

 

[kingswood71]

I would have thought that epithelial penis skin cells would feature? This whole jiggy-jiggy business tends to be a bit abrasive

This gets back to a point I made earlier about contamination. So each ml of ejeculate contains on average 20-100 million sperm. Average ejeculate is 1.5 to 5ml. This means lots of sperm.... And a lot of DNA.
IF even a half a drop of that had of landed on CG's fingernail, it would have sent the LCN DNA test off the chart. LCN is designed for 100-200pg of DNA. If there is to much DNA, you get off-scale peaks. 100pg would be the DNA content of only 100 sperm.
Further, if the epithelial fraction contained some of his somatic cells and had contaminated then KK DNA would have caused off-scale peaks too.

 

[kingswood71]

The KK rape/s samples weren't linked to the Claremont murder series until 2009. Do we know what year the swabs from the KK rape were examined to extract the offenders DNA initially?

1996 ...they told us on Thursday.
And the link was made after they got a male profile from CG.

 

[kingswood71]

Early 1997 was the principle date. There may have been efforts earlier.

This is central to the defence claims. KK DNA was analysed in the weeks prior to the death of CG and could potentially have contaminated the CG DNA evidence received a few weeks later.

We do know the samples were stored in separate boxes 8,11

The 1997 tests were on sub-sample extracts. The initial extraction from the swabs was in 1996.

 

[Willow weeps]

The KK rape/s samples weren't linked to the Claremont murder series until 2009. Do we know what year the swabs from the KK rape were examined to extract the offenders DNA initially?

There's a great timeline on how it all came about from Friday's podcast. It was actually interesting for a change

 

[Lollie57]

exactly. Plus the clear escalation in crimes over time.
How they didn’t link the KK crime to the CSK is beyond me.

and she had a tampon in. Difficult /undesirable for rape.

 

[JezzaPerth]

and she had a tampon in. Difficult /undesirable for rape.

This sounds like an urban legend. Any proof?

 

[Lollie57]

This sounds like an urban legend. Any proof?

Just what was read out in court re autopsy details.

 

[JezzaPerth]

Just what was read out in court re autopsy details.

Can you link to an authorative source?

 

[dmorris30]

Can you link to an authorative source?

Yes it was read out in court that the coroner found tampon material in CG

 

[trawlerman]

and she had a tampon in. Difficult /undesirable for rape.

I also read that as well and it was discussed on BigFooty

 

[Lollie57]

This from WAToday:
Homicide detective details what was found on Ciara's body
Mr Bordin is now being shown the avatar sketches he filled out in relation to the post mortem of Ciara's body.
It reveals a depressed fracture on the skull marked 'trauma point - appears sharp instrument', blood stains on the bra, tears to the left thumbnail and right ring fingernail.
Of the left thumbnail, which is one of the state's critical exhibits, he wrote 'Left thumbnail low, small sample'.
It also notes Ciara's skirt was 'torn in lining, lot of staining at rear portion'.
Traces of a tampon were also located.
I'm saying that might be a reason for no apparent sexual assault.

 

[BonzaRam]

This from WAToday:
Homicide detective details what was found on Ciara's body
Mr Bordin is now being shown the avatar sketches he filled out in relation to the post mortem of Ciara's body.
It reveals a depressed fracture on the skull marked 'trauma point - appears sharp instrument', blood stains on the bra, tears to the left thumbnail and right ring fingernail.
Of the left thumbnail, which is one of the state's critical exhibits, he wrote 'Left thumbnail low, small sample'.
It also notes Ciara's skirt was 'torn in lining, lot of staining at rear portion'.
Traces of a tampon were also located.
I'm saying that might be a reason for no apparent sexual assault.

The tampon was labelled AJM38, but why would a tampon be a deterrent for a rapist who has admitted to both vaginal and anal rape?

 

[kingswood71]

The biggest deterrent I think was that CG fought back.

 

[JezzaPerth]

The tampon was labelled AJM38, but why would a tampon be a deterrent for a rapist who has admitted to both vaginal and anal rape?

A witness has now shown the depressed skull fracture is a false claim

Is there any relevant recent witness evidence of the tampon?

 

[Kurve]

The tampon was labelled AJM38, but why would a tampon be a deterrent for a rapist who has admitted to both vaginal and anal rape?

'Traces of a tampon' hasn't convinced me of a complete tampon. I'm open minded on this but more inclined to think the cotton fibres were found, tampons do leave traces/remnants of loosened fibres. Has it been confirmed anywhere as a whole item?

 

[BonzaRam]

A witness has now shown the depressed skull fracture is a false claim

Is there any relevant recent witness evidence of the tampon?

'Traces of a tampon' hasn't convinced me of a complete tampon. I'm open minded on this but more inclined to think the cotton fibres were found, tampons do leave traces of loosened fibres.

Day 30 Defense questioning Sgt McCulloch about CGs post-mortem.

"Mr Yovich then asked about Dr Margolius's gloves and whether they were very soiled after the collection of AJM 38 - a tampon collected from inside Ciara Glennon.

The court heard immediately after the tampon was removed and placed into a yellow top container and labelled AJM 38, Dr Margolius removed her gloves and they were labelled AJM 39."

 

[Kurve]

The court heard immediately after the tampon was removed and placed into a yellow top container and labelled AJM 38, Dr Margolius removed her gloves and they were labelled AJM 39."

Okay, thanks that looks to be definitive even if I'd thought there were suppression orders over details of the intimate examinations through the autopsy.

 

[JezzaPerth]

Okay, thanks that looks to be definitive even if I'd thought there were suppression orders over details of the intimate examinations in the autopsy results.

The order was for specific witnesses and it was made after McCullough's evidence and did not include McCullough.

Edit: The order is posted on the courtroom door. It may be available elsewhere

 

[Obese Arachnid]

Some magnificent work in this thread.

I think the mods should give anyone who's posted in here a badge.

Something like this but obviously smaller.

 

[one eyed spy]

Sorry...quoting myself
From yesterday we know the KK samples where tested in April-May 1997 also.
Its useful that AJM40 wasnt opened. AJM42, the middle, was opened and tested. It apparently only showed CG DNA in 1997. It was again tested in 2003, according to WAToday, and again only showed CG DNA.
This is useful. It could not have been contaminated in 1997 as it was not showing a mixed profile in 2003. The thumb wasnt opened so couldnt have been contaminated.
Will be interested to see where and how the defense claims it could be.
As Carmel said "Its dry evidence, but important"

Wasnt a LCN DNA profile only recovered once the samples where combined and despite at least 1 being labelled "debris - do not test"?

We haven't even heard how conclusively the DNA matches BRE nor whether those results are able to be duplicated now by Pathwest. I'd imagine it wouldnt have mattered how many times they were tested back then, they didnt have the capabilty to conduct sensitive enough testing to obtain a result. It doesnt mean it wasnt or hadn't already been contaminated, it just means they didn't identify it at Pathwest. If the samples weren't ever contaminated, the DNA must have been present from the outset.

I think there's a very good chance all of the samples may have been contaminated by someone based solely on the practices at the time both in the field, at the post mortem and in the lab. We know they weren't aware of how easily and readily DNA transfers and they didnt take neccessary precautions because they werent aware they had to. We've also heard about the report into the lab that concluded it was set up in such a way that the risk of contamination was likely.

The problem with them saying it could happen is everyone already knows it could happen. They really need to supply some reasonable evidence that it may have happened in this particular case.

They really dont but you would think they will have pinpointed a specific time it was most likely to have happened & they may have. Even with only the things we've heard in past week its pretty obvious that anyone who has a list of dates each sample was tested would probably be able to conclude that simply by comparing the dates & the methods of testing done on those days. If they are close I'd have to conclude contamination was a possibility based solely on their knowledge of DNA transfer at the time and the primitive testing they were doing which couldnt & maybe still cant pick up trace DNA.
Luckily for those anticipating a guilty verdict here, that the judge doesnt just have to rely on DNA to decide.

Not really as apparently the mixed sample in 2008 was from a mix from 40 and 42. So it could have been only on 40 and then mixed with 42. that would explain why 42 was a neg for accused DNA.
Additionally, the PCR may not have been able to detect his sample if it was low number DNA, until that test was run in 2008.

Why would they mix an untested sample with a tested sample that apparently contained nothing as far as they were aware?
Sounds dodgy AF to me & partially why I think any conclusions people are coming to now are very much jumping the gun. How many months of DNA & fibre evidence has been suggested & how much has been presented so far. We've barely touched on the things that might be said to connect BRE via DNA nor heard from one expert who has interpreted those results or explained how they came to be identified. The profile wasn't obtained here for starters and no one from UK has testified yet, nor has any one backed up any results nor have we heard anyone provide an alternative explanation, if there is one. Fact is we don't know yet.
Whilst I sincerely appreciate your imput & explanation of DNA, it concerns me that some people appear to be hanging off your interpretation of the evidence so far as though they're the only conclusions the judge can arrive at when everything has been presented, yet we've had barely a snippet revealed so far.

 

[kingswood71]

Wasnt a LCN DNA profile only recovered once the samples where combined and despite at least 1 being labelled "debris - do not test"?
We haven't even heard how conclusively the DNA matches BRE nor whether those results are able to be duplicated now by Pathwest. I'd imagine it wouldnt have mattered how many times they were tested back then, they didnt have the capabilty to conduct sensitive enough testing to obtain a result. It doesnt mean it wasnt or hadn't already been contaminated, it just means they didn't identify it at Pathwest. If the samples weren't ever contaminated, the DNA must have been present from the outset

"The defence accepts that the mixed DNA profile extracted from the sample that became AJM40 and AJM42 is consistent with a two person profile, the contributors of which are Ms Glennon and the accused," he said". It matches, even the defense said that. The difference is they say it was from contamination. It doesnt sound like they will argue that its not a DNA match.
42 was tested in NZ apparently in 2003/04 specifically for the Y chromosome. This makes me think that 42 didnt have any other DNA on it but CG's. NZ was using LCN by then, but they may have not used LCN on that nail...we will wait and see.
The alleged BRE DNA may well have been in the material from 40 only that apparently was never subjected to DNA testing until 2008.
It could also be that both fingernails had a small amount of DNA on them, that when combined created enough that the LCN was able to detect it.
I agree that the next few months will be interesting as we hear from the DNA experts from both sides

 

[kingswood71]

I think there's a very good chance all of the samples may have been contaminated by someone based solely on the practices at the time both in the field, at the post mortem and in the lab. We know they weren't aware of how easily and readily DNA transfers and they didnt take neccessary precautions because they werent aware they had to. We've also heard about the report into the lab that concluded it was set up in such a way that the risk of contamination was likely.

If the field work and the post-mortem were so sloppy, how have we not heard of any of the other people present contributing their DNA?
Transfer in the field or at the post-mortem would have had to be tertiary transfer: Person 1 leaves DNA on object A. Person 2 touches object A. Person 2 transfers DNA from object A to object B. So BRE leaves his DNA on KK shirt. Detective examines KK shirt without gloves and doesnt wash his hands. Detective passes DNA from KK shirt to CG nail which must have occurred the same day.
Strange how no KK DNA was left also?
IF contamination occurred, it only really could have happened in the lab.
I also dont understand what you mean by "very good chance all of the samples may have been contaminated"...What are all of the samples?
AJM 46 and 48 were tested in the UK and they were not contaminated.

 

[JezzaPerth]

"The defence accepts that the mixed DNA profile extracted from the sample that became AJM40 and AJM42 is consistent with a two person profile, the contributors of which are Ms Glennon and the accused," he said". It matches, even the defense said that. The difference is they say it was from contamination. It doesnt sound like they will argue that its not a DNA match.

This article seems to mainly disapprove of LCN DNA testing. But reading through, the vast majority of it is about the reliability and applicability of the tests to identify individuals.

Now the defence has admitted AJM 40/42 contains BRE DNA, the large majority of the article criticism is irrelevant. And given the lab practices description by Ms Ashley, including the use of laminar flow hoods, the risk of cross contamination is very low; and I discount completely any chance of contamination in the field.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2702736/