Current Claremont Murders Discussion & Edwards trial updates

[JezzaPerth]

Expert Witness statement on the Hoey case in the UK that relied on the new Low Copy Number DNA tests to identify Hoey. He was aquitted in part due to this evidence. You can be sure Yovich will run this line ruthlessly.

I think the Hoey lab was the same one that did the BRE testing using similar techniques (they modified some things after a review following Hoey)?

 

[dmorris30]

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

I would think if there was contamination of KK DNA with CG DNA 3 weeks later, that there would be other DNA from tests performed in those 3 weeks too.

 

[JWS2019]

For the fact that you dont consider any chance of contamination at any time considering the knowledge they had and the practices many have already admitted to, there's no point continuing the conversation IMO. For all we know, something else was tested in the lab from a totally unrelated crime back in the day for no result which may have been the contaminant. They didn't use new tweezers for starters. If you think you're being presented with all the results & being given all the evidence that accounts for every possible risk of things being contaminated I'm stunned.

Exactly!

So one sample was pristine according to prosecution (the one that allegedly found brads DNA )

In respect of the sample that ended up with another victims DNA showing up, was this NOT pristine ? Where the samples treated differently?

Is there a risk of contamination occurring or not ?

Are we saying:

1. YES - there was risk for the one which has someone else’s DNA, (as the risk eventuates)

2. NO - on the one that showed Brads DNA? as it’s the answer that matches?

 

[dmorris30]

Expert Witness statement on the Hoey case in the UK that relied on the new Low Copy Number DNA tests to identify Hoey. He was aquitted in part due to this evidence. You can be sure Yovich will run this line ruthlessly.

I think the Hoey lab was the same one that did the BRE testing using similar techniques (they modified some things after a review following Hoey)?

View attachment 815001

What will help the prosecution's case re LCN DNA is that the samples were viewed in the hood where no contamination could have occurred.

 

[JWS2019]

What will help the prosecution's case re LCN DNA is that the samples were viewed in the hood where no contamination could have occurred.

I would think could be another avenue for contamination risk IMO.

 

[dmorris30]

I would think could be another avenue for contamination risk IMO.

How? And being 3 weeks later when CG's DNA was drawn? 3 weeks where numerous other DNA tests would have been performed but it just happens to be the same unknown DNA of BRE that was contaminated with CG and none of KK's DNA was found in the supposed contaminated specimen? It's too much of a long shot.

 

[JezzaPerth]

I would think could be another avenue for contamination risk IMO.

After consulting with my PCR expert, it seems standard protocol is to clean the laminar flow hood and equipment such as tweezers with bleach to destroy the DNA and autoclave any re-usable parts.

For the most part they use pre-sterilised DNA free disposable parts. If on the very rare occasion some DNA has snuck onto say a scalpel blade at the factory it shows up in the run and the results invalidated. The same applies to any technician's DNA getting on samples. It does happen but it's instantly recognisable.

We know there were two and only two profiles on AJM 40/42. So no systemic contamination, nor contamination from technicians or police, and absolutely importantly no contamination from KK DNA. At that time the only source of BRE DNA was the KK mixed profile samples. The kimono wasn't analysed till much later.

 

[trawlerman]

Is there a risk of contamination occurring or not?

It seems to me that as soon as police get involved and their lack of due diligence transfers to the medical professionals, then the chances are things will go horribly wrong.

Without any untested evidence that I've seen put forward, I have no idea what's going on in regards to this trial. Yovich may have something crucial up his sleeve that nobody has seen coming, Kingswood highly doubts that and I'm happy to go along with him. But it was a pretty strong statement from Yovich that "they have the wrong man" if indeed he knew he was guilty at the start of the trial.

After the defence has presented their case and summed, we may have to be ready to change our minds about BRE.

I'm simply satisfied with the way Kingswood explained things in relation to the absence of basically any possibility BRE's DNA got transferred and am keeping fingers crossed that he's right.

 

[Sir_Loin]

Exactly!

So one sample was pristine according to prosecution (the one that allegedly found brads DNA )

In respect of the sample that ended up with another victims DNA showing up, was this NOT pristine ? Where the samples treated differently?

Is there a risk of contamination occurring or not ?

Are we saying:

1. YES - there was risk for the one which has someone else’s DNA, (as the risk eventuates)

2. NO - on the one that showed Brads DNA? as it’s the answer that matches?

What are the chances it’s BRE’s DNA being the sole contaminate?

It is simply unbelievable

 

[JWS2019]

What are the chances it’s BRE’s DNA being the sole contaminate?

It is simply unbelievable

What are the chances of a “Another” victims DNA being the sole contaminate on another sample?

Just saying, I hope they can prove why that and other samples where contaminated.

 

[JWS2019]

After consulting with my PCR expert, it seems standard protocol is to clean the laminar flow hood and equipment such as tweezers with bleach to destroy the DNA and autoclave any re-usable parts.

For the most part they use pre-sterilised DNA free disposable parts. If on the very rare occasion some DNA has snuck onto say a scalpel blade at the factory it shows up in the run and the results invalidated. The same applies to any technician's DNA getting on samples. It does happen but it's instantly recognisable.

We know there were two and only two profiles on AJM 40/42. So no systemic contamination, nor contamination from technicians or police, and absolutely importantly no contamination from KK DNA. At that time the only source of BRE DNA was the KK mixed profile samples. The kimono wasn't analysed till much later.

Thanks jezz! Will be interesting to find out how this is instantly recognisable and how to judge that it has been contaminated (other than knowing that those contaminates are from people working with the samples)

 

[JWS2019]

How? And being 3 weeks later when CG's DNA was drawn? 3 weeks where numerous other DNA tests would have been performed but it just happens to be the same unknown DNA of BRE that was contaminated with CG and none of KK's DNA was found in the supposed contaminated specimen? It's too much of a long shot.

Again I just want to understand that as well - it’s not a long shot too me. In respect can we say other contaminates where long shots as well.

It seemed from questioning the hood isn’t mentioned in pristine cleaning measures however jazz has answered that, that they are cleaned with bleach after each use.

 

[JWS2019]

After consulting with my PCR expert, it seems standard protocol is to clean the laminar flow hood and equipment such as tweezers with bleach to destroy the DNA and autoclave any re-usable parts.

For the most part they use pre-sterilised DNA free disposable parts. If on the very rare occasion some DNA has snuck onto say a scalpel blade at the factory it shows up in the run and the results invalidated. The same applies to any technician's DNA getting on samples. It does happen but it's instantly recognisable.

We know there were two and only two profiles on AJM 40/42. So no systemic contamination, nor contamination from technicians or police, and absolutely importantly no contamination from KK DNA. At that time the only source of BRE DNA was the KK mixed profile samples. The kimono wasn't analysed till much later.

Here’s hoping dr Webb wasn’t in charge of this happening

 

[dmorris30]

Again I just want to understand that as well - it’s not a long shot too me. In respect can we say other contaminates where long shots as well.

It seemed from questioning the hood isn’t mentioned in pristine cleaning measures however jazz has answered that, that they are cleaned with bleach after each use.

The hood is pristine. It has gloves built in like an incubator so no DNA from the lab tech mixes with the DNA the lab tech is processing.

 

[JezzaPerth]

Thanks jezz! Will be interesting to find out how this is instantly recognisable and how to judge that it has been contaminated (other than knowing that those contaminates are from people working with the samples)

The two types of contamination they have to deal with is DNA / RNA fragements on the supposedly pristine disposable materials, and DNA from lab workers.

For the disposables they run samples from batches of the items to see if there is any contamination. For the lab workers, they all have their profiles stored, and I wouldn't be surprised if the equipment does an automatic match in its database for known profiles when it reads out the sample. The reading is automatic on the machine using lasers sensors. The Pathlab evidence is photographs of the banding but the quantimetric analysis and printout is done by the box

I assume the state of the software art has significantly improved in the data analysis and self-checking area. I'm surprised Google don't have a product for it now

This link shows the state in 2006. If you read the first part you get educated. The second part is rubbish as it's a paid for point of view American adversarial/advocate statement.

https://web.archive.org/web/2011092...nsics.com/statements/Krane_Hoey_statement.pdf

 

[dmorris30]

Again I just want to understand that as well - it’s not a long shot too me. In respect can we say other contaminates where long shots as well.

It seemed from questioning the hood isn’t mentioned in pristine cleaning measures however jazz has answered that, that they are cleaned with bleach after each use.

Also Carmel said they will be able to show the chain of command with regards to BRE's DNA if needed.

 

[JWS2019]

One of the samples taken from underneath Jane’s fingernails was also contaminated and uncovered the presence of yet another a male Pathwest scientist’s DNA profile.

In each case the contamination wasn't detected by Pathwest in their controls at the time or for many years after the samples were originally processed and examined.

Redirect Notice

www.google.com.au

Found this article which outlines some of the contamination’s.

I want to hear when found, why contamination was spotted (other than it was a path west lab) and if there is potential for this to have occurred with brads DNA (other than it came up as his DNA it has to be accurate).

 

[JWS2019]

Also Carmel said they will be able to show the chain of command with regards to BRE's DNA if needed.

I find this odd Of her to say, of course you would want to hear the chain of command. I think this is also another issue as record keeping has not been 100% accurate.

 

[dmorris30]

Again I just want to understand that as well - it’s not a long shot too me. In respect can we say other contaminates where long shots as well.

It seemed from questioning the hood isn’t mentioned in pristine cleaning measures however jazz has answered that, that they are cleaned with bleach after each use.

If other contaminates were found it would make more sense for the contaminate to be from a lab tech and/or another sample processed the same day.

 

[JWS2019]

If other contaminates were found it would make more sense for the contaminate to be from a lab tech and/or another sample processed the same day.

They were comparing samples with the KK rape which says to me this could have happened

 

[dmorris30]

I find this odd Of her to say, of course you would want to hear the chain of command. I think this is also another issue as record keeping has not been 100% accurate.

She said that because she knows Yovanich will try and say BRE's DNA was contaminated into CG's thru mishandling and Carmel has evidence that the samples weren't stored near each other nor processed even on the same table or at the same time/day.

 

[dmorris30]

They were comparing samples with the KK rape which says to me this could have happened

3 weeks later! KK's DNA was processed 3 weeks earlier on a different table and the samples weren't stored near each other.

 

[Sir_Loin]

What are the chances of a “Another” victims DNA being the sole contaminate on another sample?

Just saying, I hope they can prove why that and other samples where contaminated.

My point is that its BRE’s that is the “contaminate”. What are the chances that the Karrakatta rapist, a violent sexual offender who for all intents and purposes was a whisker away from murdering the victim ends up with their DNA on a CSK murder victim?

I think that’s a different scenario to the one you’re proposing.

 

[JezzaPerth]

Again I just want to understand that as well - it’s not a long shot too me. In respect can we say other contaminates where long shots as well.

It seemed from questioning the hood isn’t mentioned in pristine cleaning measures however jazz has answered that, that they are cleaned with bleach after each use.

Carmel didn't ask about cleaning the hood. The only cleaning discussed was the use of ajax in the mortuary.

I assume Yovich will bring the topic up in his friendly uncle mode - before putting on his clown mask and ripping the witness to pieces with his stainless steel talons

 

[BonzaRam]

Exactly!

So one sample was pristine according to prosecution (the one that allegedly found brads DNA )

In respect of the sample that ended up with another victims DNA showing up, was this NOT pristine ? Where the samples treated differently?

Is there a risk of contamination occurring or not ?

Are we saying:

1. YES - there was risk for the one which has someone else’s DNA, (as the risk eventuates)

2. NO - on the one that showed Brads DNA? as it’s the answer that matches?

What "pristine" DNA sample are you referring too?

The only sample i have heard called "pristine' is the RH17 - the fibre sample taken from CGs hair.