sammynb 3281 Posted October 18, 2005 Share Posted October 18, 2005 Have to disagree with people here.The guy being tried for this is a piece of work who has been known to travel from South Australia to Western Australia leaving a trail of distruction on his path. I remember reading an article by one of the better investigative journos before he was arrested about how years before the police were just about to pounce on him until he skipped out of South Australia and there wasn't enough evidence to extradite him back. An ampetamines abuser, with a tendency for violence - never a winning combination. 46927[/snapback] In other words someone the Police have been after for years (unsuccesfully) has suddenly been charged with murder................................... In the UK you'd be thinking about the Guildford 4 etc etc at this point How ... convenient........ 46971[/snapback] Possibly Rob or maybe they actually got lucky and got the right guy. You have to remember unlike in the UK the police here (and especially in WA, NT and SA) they have a tendancy just to shoot the ones they really want to pin something on. I know you will be relying on the beeb for your informed views but maybe for this you would like to also peruse our aunty for some reportage. try here Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted October 18, 2005 Share Posted October 18, 2005 There is DNA evidence to suggest he was at the scene of the crime. I know it could be a fit up but it's better than claiming the girlfriend did it because she was having an affair or because she has shifty eyes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig 6670 Posted October 18, 2005 Share Posted October 18, 2005 I love it when people have such strong opinions about something they know very little about. FACT! 46930[/snapback] An opinion maybe - a STRONG opinion - not yet 46969[/snapback] I didn't necessarily mean you Rob, it's more the people who seem certain she did it. 46972[/snapback] Seem certain?? More like are certain..... Scary thing is, these people are now old enough to carry out jury service - I'd hate to be in the dock if they were on the jury, that's for sure... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob W 0 Posted October 18, 2005 Author Share Posted October 18, 2005 There is DNA evidence to suggest he was at the scene of the crime. I know it could be a fit up but it's better than claiming the girlfriend did it because she was having an affair or because she has shifty eyes. 46980[/snapback] the original DNA tests showed no match apparently - so they sent them to the UK who did some "special processing" and "found" a match... maybe.......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted October 18, 2005 Share Posted October 18, 2005 There is DNA evidence to suggest he was at the scene of the crime. I know it could be a fit up but it's better than claiming the girlfriend did it because she was having an affair or because she has shifty eyes. 46980[/snapback] the original DNA tests showed no match apparently - so they sent them to the UK who did some "special processing" and "found" a match... maybe.......... 47007[/snapback] So there's a intercontinental conspiracy at work now eh? The original match was inconclusive but more advanced tests done in the UK showed a 'good match' which meant it was 'highly likely' the accused was at the scene. I think it's because they were dealing with very small genetic samples that the original test were not able to show a match. Obviously, I'm relating layman's terms from stuff I've heard on the news as I don't actually understand the science at all Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renton 20944 Posted October 18, 2005 Share Posted October 18, 2005 There is DNA evidence to suggest he was at the scene of the crime. I know it could be a fit up but it's better than claiming the girlfriend did it because she was having an affair or because she has shifty eyes. 46980[/snapback] the original DNA tests showed no match apparently - so they sent them to the UK who did some "special processing" and "found" a match... maybe.......... 47007[/snapback] So there's a intercontinental conspiracy at work now eh? The original match was inconclusive but more advanced tests done in the UK showed a 'good match' which meant it was 'highly likely' the accused was at the scene. I think it's because they were dealing with very small genetic samples that the original test were not able to show a match. Obviously, I'm relating layman's terms from stuff I've heard on the news as I don't actually understand the science at all 47009[/snapback] Molecular biology. Piece of piss. FACT. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob W 0 Posted October 18, 2005 Author Share Posted October 18, 2005 Remember that doctor who gave evidence about the Cot Deaths - he was pretty clear about the evidence as well - pity he was wrong............... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted October 18, 2005 Share Posted October 18, 2005 Remember that doctor who gave evidence about the Cot Deaths - he was pretty clear about the evidence as well - pity he was wrong............... 47028[/snapback] Aye, experts sometimes make mistakes Rob, however the use of "..." around certain words in your last post suggests foul play is at work, in your opinion. Do you think there is a conspiracy or do you have any reason to believe the medical evidence in this case is flawed? Genuine question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renton 20944 Posted October 18, 2005 Share Posted October 18, 2005 Remember that doctor who gave evidence about the Cot Deaths - he was pretty clear about the evidence as well - pity he was wrong............... 47028[/snapback] To be fair, his methodology was so flawed its a disgrace it wasn't picked up sooner. DNA profiling is a much more exact science. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig 6670 Posted October 18, 2005 Share Posted October 18, 2005 DNA profiling is a much more exact science. 47033[/snapback] Exact?? Not a word I'd choose to use when talking about DNA profiling.... It can be used to define the probability that a person has done something, but it cannot be used to prove they have because it simply isn't unique... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob W 0 Posted October 18, 2005 Author Share Posted October 18, 2005 I think Craig is right................. Probability is not certainty As for medical evidence I wait the defence with interest........... He could well be guilty - I don't know - but then we haven't heard all the evidence yet Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renton 20944 Posted October 18, 2005 Share Posted October 18, 2005 DNA profiling is a much more exact science. 47033[/snapback] Exact?? Not a word I'd choose to use when talking about DNA profiling.... It can be used to define the probability that a person has done something, but it cannot be used to prove they have because it simply isn't unique... 47035[/snapback] I'm pretty sure my DNA code is unique like, unless unknown to me I have an identical twin or clone. Do you know much about genetics Craig? Otherwise there's not much point in talking about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig 6670 Posted October 18, 2005 Share Posted October 18, 2005 DNA profiling is a much more exact science. 47033[/snapback] Exact?? Not a word I'd choose to use when talking about DNA profiling.... It can be used to define the probability that a person has done something, but it cannot be used to prove they have because it simply isn't unique... 47035[/snapback] I'm pretty sure my DNA code is unique like, unless unknown to me I have an identical twin or clone. Do you know much about genetics Craig? Otherwise there's not much point in talking about it. 47038[/snapback] Yep, my brother did his PhD in it! It's what the whole argument about the biometric ID cards is all about. DNA is not 100% unique, like finger-printing, it is widely believed that it is but they can never use it as 100% proof. I'll have to check with him for the exact figures, but the chances of 2 people having the same DNA is somewhere around 1 in a million - it's unlikely that you'd ever find a complete match up, but it's not impossible. That is why they can never use DNA to convict someone - they'll use it to provide 'beyond resonable doubt', but it can never be 100% certain... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renton 20944 Posted October 18, 2005 Share Posted October 18, 2005 DNA profiling is a much more exact science. 47033[/snapback] Exact?? Not a word I'd choose to use when talking about DNA profiling.... It can be used to define the probability that a person has done something, but it cannot be used to prove they have because it simply isn't unique... 47035[/snapback] I'm pretty sure my DNA code is unique like, unless unknown to me I have an identical twin or clone. Do you know much about genetics Craig? Otherwise there's not much point in talking about it. 47038[/snapback] Yep, my brother did his PhD in it! It's what the whole argument about the biometric ID cards is all about. DNA is not 100% unique, like finger-printing, it is widely believed that it is but they can never use it as 100% proof. I'll have to check with him for the exact figures, but the chances of 2 people having the same DNA is somewhere around 1 in a million - it's unlikely that you'd ever find a complete match up, but it's not impossible. That is why they can never use DNA to convict someone - they'll use it to provide 'beyond resonable doubt', but it can never be 100% certain... 47042[/snapback] A person's DNA is unique though, it's what defines us. This is basic biology - ask your brother. The reason there is an element of doubt when two samples of DNA are compared is because they don't compare the entire genome - just a minute section of it. However, I am pretty sure you can establish if two samples are different, or if they are the same to any reasonable degree of doubt. By this I mean one chance in several billion, not million. DNA is not used as the sole evidence to convict someone for the same reasons no single piece of evidence is used to convict someone, including a confession. It would be unsafe to do so as the evidence could be planted. You need to establish other facts as well such as other forensic evidence, opportunity, motive etc. But to suggest molecular biology is not an exact science is nonsense, it is easily the most exact of all the biological sciences. It is much more exact than dermatoglyphics (finger printing), for example. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig 6670 Posted October 18, 2005 Share Posted October 18, 2005 I'm waiting to get the full SP on it (waiting for the swine to answer his email) but I know they've proved that it is not 100% unique. The can use DNA to say 'that in all probability' but they can never use it to say 'this definitely was the case'... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renton 20944 Posted October 18, 2005 Share Posted October 18, 2005 I'm waiting to get the full SP on it (waiting for the swine to answer his email) but I know they've proved that it is not 100% unique. The can use DNA to say 'that in all probability' but they can never use it to say 'this definitely was the case'... 47053[/snapback] FFS. The only people who have identical DNA are identical twins. This is 'O' level standard biology. Otherwise there would be clones of yourself walking down the street. I've already explained why you can never definitely prove two samples are the same - because they don't compare the entire DNA genome which is massive - equivalent to several volumes of the encyclopedia Brittanica. Btw Craig, I used a variety of molecular biology techniques in my PhD as well. I am by no means an expert but I know that I don't have the same genetic code as anyone else! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig 6670 Posted October 18, 2005 Share Posted October 18, 2005 I'm waiting to get the full SP on it (waiting for the swine to answer his email) but I know they've proved that it is not 100% unique. The can use DNA to say 'that in all probability' but they can never use it to say 'this definitely was the case'... 47053[/snapback] FFS. The only people who have identical DNA are identical twins. This is 'O' level standard biology. Otherwise there would be clones of yourself walking down the street. I've already explained why you can never definitely prove two samples are the same - because they don't compare the entire DNA genome which is massive - equivalent to several volumes of the encyclopedia Brittanica. Btw Craig, I used a variety of molecular biology techniques in my PhD as well. I am by no means an expert but I know that I don't have the same genetic code as anyone else! 47055[/snapback] I've never said you've got exactly the same DNA as someone else.... What I am saying is that DNA testing is not conclusive as it is possible for the sample one person gives to match up with a sample that another person gives... Hence why I've said that DNA testing is not 'exact'.... * - remember you were originally talking about DNA profiling rather than a persons entire DNA structure! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renton 20944 Posted October 18, 2005 Share Posted October 18, 2005 I'm waiting to get the full SP on it (waiting for the swine to answer his email) but I know they've proved that it is not 100% unique. The can use DNA to say 'that in all probability' but they can never use it to say 'this definitely was the case'... 47053[/snapback] FFS. The only people who have identical DNA are identical twins. This is 'O' level standard biology. Otherwise there would be clones of yourself walking down the street. I've already explained why you can never definitely prove two samples are the same - because they don't compare the entire DNA genome which is massive - equivalent to several volumes of the encyclopedia Brittanica. Btw Craig, I used a variety of molecular biology techniques in my PhD as well. I am by no means an expert but I know that I don't have the same genetic code as anyone else! 47055[/snapback] I've never said you've got exactly the same DNA as someone else.... What I am saying is that DNA testing is not conclusive as it is possible for the sample one person gives to match up with a sample that another person gives... Hence why I've said that DNA testing is not 'exact'.... * - remember you were originally talking about DNA profiling rather than a persons entire DNA structure! 47058[/snapback] OK, then we agree. It's still an exact science though, because you can work out the exact probability that the match is down to chance. Whereas the consultant who said those cot deaths could not have been a result of chance and therefore the mother must have killed them was talking out his arse basically. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig 6670 Posted October 18, 2005 Share Posted October 18, 2005 He most certainly was talking out of his arse and has now be 'rightly' struck-off the medical register IIRC... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Sima Posted October 18, 2005 Share Posted October 18, 2005 Anyone who writes FACT or FACTAMUNDO after a wild statement deserves not to have an opinion on anything tbh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve 0 Posted October 18, 2005 Share Posted October 18, 2005 Do you know much about genetics Craig? Otherwise there's not much point in talking about it. 47038[/snapback] Yep, my brother did his PhD in it! So your brother knows a fair bit about genetics then. You though... ? p.s. It was Alex that did it. He tried to kill me too but I was way too smart and got away. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig 6670 Posted October 18, 2005 Share Posted October 18, 2005 Do you know much about genetics Craig? Otherwise there's not much point in talking about it. 47038[/snapback] Yep, my brother did his PhD in it! So your brother knows a fair bit about genetics then. You though... ? 47104[/snapback] I dunno what you crazy Aussies do with your siblings, but we do actually converse from time to time.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renton 20944 Posted October 18, 2005 Share Posted October 18, 2005 Do you know much about genetics Craig? Otherwise there's not much point in talking about it. 47038[/snapback] Yep, my brother did his PhD in it! So your brother knows a fair bit about genetics then. You though... ? 47104[/snapback] I dunno what you crazy Aussies do with your siblings, but we do actually converse from time to time.... 47128[/snapback] About forensic pathology? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
catmag 336 Posted October 18, 2005 Share Posted October 18, 2005 I have my suspicions about Joanne Lees too. As was mentioned before - it's something about the eyes... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve 0 Posted October 18, 2005 Share Posted October 18, 2005 I was wondering the same thing. I take it meal time in the Hayton household was time for advanced genetic lectures on the nights when it was Craig's brother's turn to speak. So Craig, what were the IT lectures you gave like? Just cos my sister's a med student, it doesn't make me a doctor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now