I have managed to retrieve some documents, from my 2004 drive...

[killingeve]

Vic good morning to you.

Are probabilities the same as a unique match?  I don't think it is.  The problem I have is that no one can say 100% that the DNA belonged to June....Likely and probable is not a good answer in my opinion. 

The crowns case was that Sheila's blood was found in the silencer therefore she could not have shot herself and put the silencer back in the gun cupboard. 

Now, we know that Sheila's blood was not in the silencer and that its probably June's DNA which was found.  The COA excepted that it belonged to June.  If this is so then it is also possible that Sheila could have put the silencer back into the cupboard before shooting herself.....

Morning Patti

I love you.

June's DNA could quite easily have been in the silencer as a result of contamination.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low_copy_number

"...meaning that a profile can be obtained from only a few cells, which may be as small as a millionth the size of a grain of salt, and amount to just a few cells of skin or sweat left from a fingerprint".

IMO the idea that the silencer left the cupboard that fateful night is nonsense.

Re SC's DNA profile garnered from her birth mother and "other sources".  Any ideas about the "other sources" 

The DNA profile for June garnered from PB shows "That evidence shows that it is about 3,500 times more likely that the major source of DNA was from a full sister of Pamela Boutflour, ie June Bamber compared to it being from an unrelated female".

Why no numerical comparison with SC's DNA profile garnered from SC's birth mother and "other sources"!!!

What/who are the "other sources"!!!  Why does the appeal judgement not identify the "other sources"!!!
 
 

[lookout]

Hi Lookout

I was highlighting the crowns case...I have problems in believing the silencer was ever fitted to the rifle.  Vanezes says quite clearly that the marks on Neville's arm was done by the muzzle of the rifle.  Surely Vanzes would know the difference from finger gouges and that of the muzzle of the rifle. 

The burn marks on NB'S was proved not to have come from the silencer fitted. But,it was said that more test were needed because the muzzle of the rifle did not get hot enough to have made the burn marks.

Who is to know that after June was shot the silencer was taken off....We just don't know....If only eh? 

Hi Patti,,the way in which the rifle was used,,,in a frenzied manner,,,the muzzle would certainly have got hot,,hot enough to burn flesh,,which to my mind it did.
Coupled with the " grab " marks on the arms of both June and Neville,,,it can only have been Sheila lashing out. The marks on the forearms can only be made by someone with finger nails above the ends of their fingers,,and not if you haven't got fingernails above the flesh of the fingers.
It was literally " a moment of madness ".

What's more,,nobody can tell me that those children didn't wake up at some point on hearing all the noise,,and I reckon that Sheila would then have changed her stance to reassure them,,in her own way.
Sadly,,she would have killed them at that juncture,,and then put the childs' thumb in his mouth,,afterwards.

[killingeve]

Hi Patti,,the way in which the rifle was used,,,in a frenzied manner,,,the muzzle would certainly have got hot,,hot enough to burn flesh,,which to my mind it did.
Coupled with the " grab " marks on the arms of both June and Neville,,,it can only have been Sheila lashing out. The marks on the forearms can only be made by someone with finger nails above the ends of their fingers,,and not if you haven't got fingernails above the flesh of the fingers.
It was literally " a moment of madness ".

What's more,,nobody can tell me that those children didn't wake up at some point on hearing all the noise,,and I reckon that Sheila would then have changed her stance to reassure them,,in her own way.
Sadly,,she would have killed them at that juncture,,and then put the childs' thumb in his mouth,,afterwards.

Morning Lookout

Tests prove that the gun being fired alone would not create  sufficient heat to cause the burn marks.

The children are unlikely to have woken by the gun as the sound without silencer is low level.

May I suggest you read some of NGB's posts re the above  . Than you.

[Patti]

Morning Patti

I love you.

June's DNA could quite easily have been in the silencer as a result of contamination.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low_copy_number

"...meaning that a profile can be obtained from only a few cells, which may be as small as a millionth the size of a grain of salt, and amount to just a few cells of skin or sweat left from a fingerprint".

IMO the idea that the silencer left the cupboard that fateful night is nonsense.

Re SC's DNA profile garnered from her birth mother and "other sources".  Any ideas about the "other sources" 

The DNA profile for June garnered from PB shows "That evidence shows that it is about 3,500 times more likely that the major source of DNA was from a full sister of Pamela Boutflour, ie June Bamber compared to it being from an unrelated female".

Why no numerical comparison with SC's DNA profile garnered from SC's birth mother and "other sources"!!!

What/who are the "other sources"!!!  Why does the appeal judgement not identify the "other sources"!!!
 

Morning NN  

No idea about the other sources.....

On the Madeline McCann thread I posted the results and finding of the LCN DNA from our Birmingham lab.  The same process used in 2001 ready for the COA in 2002. 

This technique was suspended in 2007 and reinstated in 2008 due to its intensive copying and lacked validation by the majority of highly trained scientists. 

If you consider the 37 components 20 of those components have to be matched anything less than that means its not unique to that person and is too complex to give a proper interpretation. 

Pam gave a sample of her blood.  Pam would have 10 alleles from each of her parents making it 20 overall as would June. But, she would not share the same DNA as her sister.  Only twins share the DNA profile.  For a DNA profile to be unique it has to 20 alleles and the LCN DNA only shared 17 markers out of the 20 therefore making it unlikely that the DNA belonged to June.  In all fairness this is not a unique match; simply because the DNA was not unique and was from a mixture, making it unsafe to say categorically that it was June's DNA....its too complex to read.  The same happened in the McCann case and if you look at that result it mirrors the same results because it was from a mixture and DNA was taken from the family to identify who's DNA it was....It was deemed not unique to Madeline because the markers were 17 and not 20......even at 19 its not unique...

I love you too......

[lookout]

Morning Lookout

Tests prove that the gun being fired alone would not create  sufficient heat to cause the burn marks.

The children are unlikely to have woken by the gun as the sound without silencer is low level.

May I suggest you read some of NGB's posts re the above  . Than you.

Good morning NN,,I have begun to disbelieve any tests that were made,,and therefore I say that the muzzle would have been hot enough to have seared the skin.

[Patti]

Suppose now that the winning combination of the lottery is: 4, 7, 12, 23, 38, 46. Lots of people have two, or three, or four of those numbers ("alleles") because those numbers are not unique to a particular person. But the combination ("profile") of the six numbers may be unique to a person, or maybe two, but no more. Or maybe no one has that combination. It's just an analogy, but I think it helps to understand the way in which DNA is matched. 

[Patti]

Good morning NN,,I have begun to disbelieve any tests that were made,,and therefore I say that the muzzle would have been hot enough to have seared the skin.

The marks must have come from some heat source Lookout. Unless Vanezes is incorrect and those marks are not burn marks, but I can't see thats the case, really.  More test are needed to prove this point, but the test did reveal that the burn marks were unlikely to have been made without the silencer fitted.   

[lookout]

I'm now going to find out about " over-cooperation " in police investigations regarding crimes,,particularly murders.

[killingeve]

Good morning NN,,I have begun to disbelieve any tests that were made,,and therefore I say that the muzzle would have been hot enough to have seared the skin.

Fine if you want to disbelieve NGB be my guest. 

[Alias]

I am no expert in DNA but this is how the findings for the 2002 were explained to me at the time.

Pam gave DNA as June's sister. The DNA found in the silencer was of sufficient a match as would be expected of ones sister and an extremely high probability that it was June's. I believe a statistic was given, which I'm sure is in the judgement, but all agreed that it WAS June's DNA in the silencer.

The match to Sheila's was statistically much lower. It was above average but not enough to say with any certainty. When the expert said that in her opinion there was a GOOD chance it WAS Sheila's, if I remember correctly, she was admonished by one of the judges as going too far....( I think I remeber it being a 'she' but again I could be mistaken.)

As for the evidence, I do not believe that the silencer is the only thing that convicted him.

The whole phone call scenario is vitally important and if Bamber is innocent then he is the unluckiest man that ever lived.

Why do you think that all physical evidence in the case was destroyed in 1996?

[killingeve]

Morning NN  

No idea about the other sources.....

On the Madeline McCann thread I posted the results and finding of the LCN DNA from our Birmingham lab.  The same process used in 2001 ready for the COA in 2002. 

This technique was suspended in 2007 and reinstated in 2008 due to its intensive copying and lacked validation by the majority of highly trained scientists. 

If you consider the 37 components 20 of those components have to be matched anything less than that means its not unique to that person and is too complex to give a proper interpretation. 

Pam gave a sample of her blood.  Pam would have 10 alleles from each of her parents making it 20 overall as would June. But, she would not share the same DNA as her sister.  Only twins share the DNA profile.  For a DNA profile to be unique it has to 20 alleles and the LCN DNA only shared 17 markers out of the 20 therefore making it unlikely that the DNA belonged to June.  In all fairness this is not a unique match; simply because the DNA was not unique and was from a mixture, making it unsafe to say categorically that it was June's DNA....its too complex to read.  The same happened in the McCann case and if you look at that result it mirrors the same results because it was from a mixture and DNA was taken from the family to identify who's DNA it was....It was deemed not unique to Madeline because the markers were 17 and not 20......even at 19 its not unique...

I love you too......

Hi Patti

I don't know enough about the type of DNA profiling used in the McCann case to comment.

In the case of JB yes the appeal court judges ruled that June's DNA was in silencer but as LCN DNA profiling was not even envisaged in '85 exhibits were not protected against contamination.  For example jurors handled various exhibits including the silencer therefore it is not possible to rule out contamination.  You can see from the above link that microscopic cells are sufficient to provide a profile. 

[Patti]

Hi Patti

I don't know enough about the type of DNA profiling used in the McCann case to comment.

In the case of JB yes the appeal court judges ruled that June's DNA was in silencer but as LCN DNA profiling was not even envisaged in '85 exhibits were not protected against contamination.  For example jurors handled various exhibits including the silencer therefore it is not possible to rule out contamination.  You can see from the above link that microscopic cells are sufficient to provide a profile.

I've no idea about DNA and how its tested lol I love to make things up as I go along....Do I sound convincing?  Hahahahahahahaha

[Patti]

What LCN DNA does not do is determine how and when the DNA was put there.  During the test process the lesser the amount of DNA there is, the more likely an innocent person could be picked up. 

Its strange that DNA was found where there is no longer any blood visible to the naked eye...LCN DNA can't tell us if the source was from blood or whether it was contamination......

Read Krane v Hoey   

http://www.bioforensics.com/statements/Krane_Hoey_statement.pdf

[Patti]

DNA in quantities at LCN levels can easily be transferred from one article to
another (e.g. from evidence sample, onto the analyst’s lab coat or gloves, then to another
evidence sample; or by having been stored together in a single package) – without the
contributor having any knowledge that the transfer(s) has occurred. No DNA tests are
currently able to distinguish between secondary transfer (such as the transfer of DNA
through contamination events) or DNA present due to direct contact with an object.
Similarly, DNA tests are not currently capable of distinguishing in any way between the
presence of DNA due to contamination (such as could very easily occur through storing
or opening the objects in the same location as items obtained from an individual) or direct
contact between an individual and the object. Given that LCN analyses can conceivably
generate results from as little material as a single cell of an individual, the only way to be
confident that results have not been obtained solely through contamination is to
demonstrate conclusively with continuity records that contamination is not even remotely
possible.

[lookout]

Fine if you want to disbelieve NGB be my guest.

I did not say that,,NN. You did.