A Disturbing Allegation!

[scipio_usmc]

Where did you read that Scip? How would they know it was the DNA of one of the twins, if they had nothing to test it against? A source for this would be helpful as I would like to read it and I imagine others would too.

Ten areas of the moderator were tested. The main contributor in 5 areas was Sheila, in 3 areas was June and the main contributor in the last 2 areas was someone with DNA extremely close to Sheil's but not identical 1 DNA marker was different.  Since there was no biological relation of anyone except the twins to Sheila that means either the main contributor in the last 2 areas was one of the boys or both the boys.

The 2002 Appeal Court discussed this very issue when discussing the the 7 areas of the moderator tested aside from the the baffles:

"When comparisons were possible, components matching Sheila Caffell's DNA profile were detected in five of these seven results. The other two results also contained components which matched those of Sheila Caffell, but not at all of the ten areas of DNA tested where information was available for comparison. Some of the components detected did not match the profile of Sheila Caffell or the Caffell twins."

So this is effectively saying the last 2 moderator areas tested matched the twins because it was nearly identical to Sheila's DNA yet not a perfect match in all 10 markers. The last sentence acknowledges the twins' DNA was found but mentions their were minor contributions from people other than Sheila and one or both of the twins in these 7 samples.  They could not ascertain who these minor contributors were because the profiles were too incomplete.

 

[Caroline]

Ten areas of the moderator were tested. The main contributor in 5 areas was Sheila, in 3 areas was June and the main contributor in the last 2 areas was someone with DNA extremely close to Sheil's but not identical 1 DNA marker was different.  Since there was no biological relation of anyone except the twins to Sheila that means either the main contributor in the last 2 areas was one of the boys or both the boys.

The 2002 Appeal Court discussed this very issue when discussing the the 7 areas of the moderator tested aside from the the baffles:

"When comparisons were possible, components matching Sheila Caffell's DNA profile were detected in five of these seven results. The other two results also contained components which matched those of Sheila Caffell, but not at all of the ten areas of DNA tested where information was available for comparison. Some of the components detected did not match the profile of Sheila Caffell or the Caffell twins."

So this is effectively saying the last 2 moderator areas tested matched the twins because it was nearly identical to Sheila's DNA yet not a perfect match in all 10 markers. The last sentence acknowledges the twins' DNA was found but mentions their were minor contributions from people other than Sheila and one or both of the twins in these 7 samples.  They could not ascertain who these minor contributors were because the profiles were too incomplete.

I might be being thick here but the first highlighted sentence states that some components did NOT match Sheila Caffell or the Caffell twins? So how is that saying that he last 2 moderator areas tested matched the twins?

[scipio_usmc]

I might be being thick here but the first highlighted sentence states that some components did NOT match Sheila Caffell or the Caffell twins? So how is that saying that he last 2 moderator areas tested matched the twins?

There were additional components because the DNA was mixed.  Every single area tested had DNA of more than 1 person in it. Each sample had a major contributor and then minor contributor. 

Moderator areas 1-3 (the baffles) featured June as the major contributor. The minor contributor could have been the same for all 3 batches or could have each been a different person. 

Moderator Area 1) major contributor June, minor contributor anyone
Moderator Area 2) major contributor June, minor contributor a male
Moderator Area 3) major contributor June, minor contributor a male
Moderator Area 4) major contributor Sheila, minor contributor someone other than the twins
Moderator Area 5) major contributor Sheila, minor contributor someone other than the twins
Moderator Area 6) major contributor Sheila, minor contributor someone other than the twins
Moderator Area 7) major contributor Sheila, minor contributor someone other than the twins
Moderator Area major contributor Sheila, minor contributor someone other than the twins
Moderator Area 9) major contributor a twin, minor contributor someone other than Sheila
Moderator Area 10) major contributor a twin, minor contributor someone other than Sheila

[Jan]

But you said the DNA did not come from blood - so how did the DNA get there?

[Caroline]

But you said the DNA did not come from blood - so how did the DNA get there?

I thought the appeal conceded that it most likely got there from contamination?

[Jan]

I know - but is that not a co-incidence that the contamination came from the victims?

This is looking at it from both angles - I am not saying it makes it look good for Jeremy - But the jury was led to believe it was not a "mixture" of blood ( although other experts said it could have been) 

But as the DNA was not from the blood how did the DNA of persons who were dead get in the moderator? -  it was insinuated the contamination came about because the silencer was handled - but it was not handled by the twins or june was it?

[scipio_usmc]

But you said the DNA did not come from blood - so how did the DNA get there?

It was handled repeatedly after the murders by people who had touched the victim's DNA.  It is quite easy to transfer minute amounts of DNA. Such tiny transfers were not even detectable prior to DNA techniques which replicate the DNA until creating a large enough sample.  Some of minor contributions could have belonged to people who built the moderator/parts of the moderator and thus handled them or the lab workers or even jury members. Even spit can result in minor contamination.

There is also a small chance the DNA of the boys and Sheila were blood based but there is no way to prove it either way. They didn't do exhaustive blood tests in 1985 and 1986 of the entire moderator like had been done with the baffles. The 1999 blood tests were not as thorough as the earlier ones because they didn't want to damage any DNA that was present.  There could have been microscopic blood drops missed in 1985 and 1986 which were picked up by the LCN testing because it is so sensitive. If it was blood based all it means is that very tiny drops of the boys blood got not far inside of it. That small amount of blood would help confirm it was used to kill them because their blood would not otherwise be inside even in such tiny amounts but there is no way to prove it was blood based as opposed to contamination.

The only thing removed which we know was blood based was the blood removed which proves the moderator was used.  The trial defense conceded it was used because they had no way to refute it's use. The best idea they could come up with was to suggest it was used on everyone except Sheila and put away which is a very weak argument but the only argument they had, and no argument is worse than a very weak one.

 

[Caroline]

I know - but is that not a co-incidence that the contamination came from the victims?

This is looking at it from both angles - I am not saying it makes it look good for Jeremy - But the jury was led to believe it was not a "mixture" of blood ( although other experts said it could have been) 

But as the DNA was not from the blood how did the DNA of persons who were dead get in the moderator? -  it was insinuated the contamination came about because the silencer was handled - but it was not handled by the twins or june was it?

Not really given that forensic staff would have been working with evidence from all of the victims. I suspect they had to wear gloves  so there was more risk of cross contamination of evidence rather than from the lab staff.

[scipio_usmc]

Not really given that forensic staff would have been working with evidence from all of the victims. I suspect they had to wear gloves  so there was more risk of cross contamination of evidence rather than from the lab staff.

We don't know if Nevill ever took apart the moderator prior to the murders but that is another way non-blood contamination could occur.  If Nevill had DNA from someone else on him he could have transferred tiny amounts and naturally that includes DNA of other victims in addition to friends.

If there is a substantial amount of saliva based DNA then it means I spit inside but a lesser quantity of my saliva can get on someone and small amounts could be transplanted. The quantity and nature of the DNA and totality of the circumstances are important in assessing what if anything DNA can prove.  DNA winds up being useless in a number of cases.

Suppose there were a retrial would the NA tests be able to prove anything?  Since it can't be established as being blood based the prosecution can't use DNA to prove it was used to shoot anyone.  By the same token the defense can't use the DNA to prove it was used on June and Nevill but not Sheila. The DNA would be of no value at all. That is why the Appeal Court didn't allow it to be used by either side.  It objectively fails to prove anything.

[Jan]

It was handled repeatedly after the murders by people who had touched the victim's DNA.  It is quite easy to transfer minute amounts of DNA. Such tiny transfers were not even detectable prior to DNA techniques which replicate the DNA until creating a large enough sample.  Some of minor contributions could have belonged to people who built the moderator/parts of the moderator and thus handled them or the lab workers or even jury members. Even spit can result in minor contamination.

There is also a small chance the DNA of the boys and Sheila were blood based but there is no way to prove it either way. They didn't do exhaustive blood tests in 1985 and 1986 of the entire moderator like had been done with the baffles. The 1999 blood tests were not as thorough as the earlier ones because they didn't want to damage any DNA that was present.  There could have been microscopic blood drops missed in 1985 and 1986 which were picked up by the LCN testing because it is so sensitive. If it was blood based all it means is that very tiny drops of the boys blood got not far inside of it. That small amount of blood would help confirm it was used to kill them because their blood would not otherwise be inside even in such tiny amounts but there is no way to prove it was blood based as opposed to contamination.

The only thing removed which we know was blood based was the blood removed which proves the moderator was used.  The trial defense conceded it was used because they had no way to refute it's use. The best idea they could come up with was to suggest it was used on everyone except Sheila and put away which is a very weak argument but the only argument they had, and no argument is worse than a very weak one.

Sorry still don't get it - in forensic environments even in the 80s people wore gloves and protection so I am still not getting how the victims DNA got into the moderator by contamination. You could also say lost of people were handling things contaminated by the victims blood and that is how that got in there as well.

[Jan]

Not really given that forensic staff would have been working with evidence from all of the victims. I suspect they had to wear gloves  so there was more risk of cross contamination of evidence rather than from the lab staff.

but you would not wear the same gloves when handling different evidence. This was only the 80s not the dark ages surely .

The police did not have any excuses - but forensic staff definitely should not . Otherwise opening up cold cases on forensic DNA evidence would be almost impossible.

[nugnug]

forensic knew about contaimation risks in the 80s.

even before dna there was other evedence that be contaimated if not handled corectly so your right they would of used diffrent gloves if they were in anyway competent.

[scipio_usmc]

but you would not wear the same gloves when handling different evidence. This was only the 80s not the dark ages surely .

The police did not have any excuses - but forensic staff definitely should not . Otherwise opening up cold cases on forensic DNA evidence would be almost impossible.

They didn't know DNA evidence would be available in the future ot retest th eitmes.  They would not change gloves.  Glove changing is recent thing done specifically because of DNA contamination risk and in numerous cases even today labs are lazy and do not do such.  They didn't change gloves in the Knox case for instance.

[Caroline]

They didn't know DNA evidence would be available in the future ot retest th eitmes.  They would not change gloves.  Glove changing is recent thing done specifically because of DNA contamination risk and in numerous cases even today labs are lazy and do not do such.  They didn't change gloves in the Knox case for instance.

I agree. they had no reason to change gloves before looking specifically for DNA.

[nugnug]

even in those there was evedence that could be contaminated for a start blood was still used as evedence you just couldent determine as much from it. and there was still the risk of mixing to lots of blood together it was stil somthing the labs cared about.

if what your saying was no cold case from the 80s would be able to be reopened.

contaimiating one persons blood with somone elses was somthing the cared about even then.