ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Trials and Errors
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags Amy Adams , Ellie France , Mark Lundy , murder cases , New Zealand cases

Reply
Old 26th May 2019, 07:04 PM   #1721
Fixit
Thinker
 
Join Date: May 2016
Posts: 224
Originally Posted by Chris_Halkides View Post
Jonathan Eaton: "...and I’m saying that’s not a substitute for the legal threshold for admissibility and it needs to be seriously debated because all we’ve got is the subjective opinions of clinicians who use IHC, they are not experts in IHC because there’s no such field of expertise, and they are giving their subjective opinions when they are searching for brain when that is not their practice. Their practice is to look at identified tissue and find disease, and now it’s being used to say “I’ve got unidentified tissue. Can you tell me if it’s brain?” Not “Can you tell me what it is?”, “Can you tell me if it’s brain?” And when one reads the PCAST report from 2016, which came after trial, and where it talks about foundational and scientific validity, this falls short on so many levels."

This is an important point with respect to the IHC, that there is no such thing as [forensic] IHC and that it is being used differently in this case from its normal uses.

Yes Chris, one of the most important points made of many. The presentation was interesting in that I felt the Court were of one mind on misapprehended facts, then turned as JE was able to explain such details as contained above. The next step naturally is to criticise the Court for allowing the Crown to stay outside forensic science norms in at least 4 ways, forensic safety chain, the use of IHC, mRNA and a worthless peer review of known material.
Fixit is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th July 2019, 02:26 PM   #1722
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 8,980
There is a one day hearing at the supreme court on 27th August

Ding ding another round would original prosecutor Ben van der Kolk like to say.

I guess that's about right eh Ben?
Samson is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th August 2019, 02:42 AM   #1723
The Atheist
The Grammar Tyrant
 
The Atheist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 26,247
Originally Posted by Samson View Post
There is a one day hearing at the supreme court on 27th August
Now a two-day hearing as it goes past closing time today.

Last Chance Saloon for Lundy.

Gotta say, I don't like his chances.
__________________
The point of equilibrium has passed; satire and current events are now indistinguishable.
The Atheist is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th August 2019, 04:22 AM   #1724
Chris_Halkides
Philosopher
 
Chris_Halkides's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 9,780
novelties

The court asked a great deal of both the defense and the jurors in 2015. The prosecution used two...novel...kinds of forensic evidence. How the jury was supposed to sort this out is not clear to me.
__________________
It is possible both to be right about an issue and to take oneself a little too seriously, but I would rather be reminded of that by a friend than a foe. (a tip of the hat to Foolmewunz)
Chris_Halkides is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th August 2019, 05:18 AM   #1725
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 8,980
Originally Posted by The Atheist View Post
Now a two-day hearing as it goes past closing time today.

Last Chance Saloon for Lundy.

Gotta say, I don't like his chances.
I was there today, will be tomorrow.
Looks difficult, but the last comment from Willie Young was
"This is an important case".

The idea that there was nothing but central nervous system tissue on the shirt is promoted by the crown and a challenging notion for the bench to ignore.
Yet it is factually false if the shirt never left Petone.

And of course the shirt never left Petone until the following day.
Samson is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th December 2019, 01:44 AM   #1726
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 8,980
Here is the link to the transcript of this day and a half hearing at the end of this post

From page 177, my analysis precedes,



This is the point to be concerned by. For obvious reasons the appeal court loved this concoction and Willie Young buys it. This is their pathway to denying Mark's appeals. Jonathan Eaton has a propensity to say yes after the judges speak but I do not think this "yes" means he agrees CNS and nothing else. Many things in the transcript to reflect on, but this is a pervasive problem, as no one can visualise a miracle of pure CNS from the foodchain.

"J Eaton

......Novel and clinical but certainly novel in a
forensic setting which led to a conclusion that these very, very small samples
from the shirt, was CNS, not brain, CNS tissue.


WILLIAM YOUNG J:
CNS and nothing else. (my bolding)


MR EATON QC:
Yes. And in the second limb, was, of course, the DNA..........."



https://www.courtsofnz.govt.nz/the-c...-2018/LMET.pdf

Last edited by Samson; 5th December 2019 at 01:50 AM.
Samson is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th December 2019, 05:01 PM   #1727
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 8,980
The judgement is to be released tomorrow.
Samson is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th December 2019, 05:24 PM   #1728
The Atheist
The Grammar Tyrant
 
The Atheist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 26,247
Originally Posted by Samson View Post
The judgement is to be released tomorrow.
Has been. Article says "Glen Weggery is relieved".

No ****.
__________________
The point of equilibrium has passed; satire and current events are now indistinguishable.
The Atheist is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th December 2019, 05:52 PM   #1729
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 8,980
Originally Posted by The Atheist View Post
Has been. Article says "Glen Weggery is relieved".

No ****.
Yeah he got 1/3 of the insurance money. 80k in 2001.
Samson is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th December 2019, 08:11 PM   #1730
Chris_Halkides
Philosopher
 
Chris_Halkides's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 9,780
nonsense about the paint

"Traces of blue and orange paint were found in the victims' wounds, and Lundy painted his tools the same colour." If the Supreme Court believed such nonsense, it is not surprising that they did not grant him a new trial.

"O'Regan said on Friday the mRNA made no real difference to the case." Link. One wonders why they spent so much money on mRNA testing.
__________________
It is possible both to be right about an issue and to take oneself a little too seriously, but I would rather be reminded of that by a friend than a foe. (a tip of the hat to Foolmewunz)

Last edited by Chris_Halkides; 19th December 2019 at 08:16 PM.
Chris_Halkides is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th December 2019, 08:59 PM   #1731
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 8,980
"The defence also pointed to evidence of unidentified
fingerprints and footprints at the scene, hairs in Mrs Lundy’s hands, and unidentified
male DNA in fingernail scrapings. The Court of Appeal found none of this evidence
cogent, and we agree.97"

This is a quick way of showing these judges are stupid or wicked.
Samson is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th December 2019, 10:06 PM   #1732
cullennz
Embarrasingly illiterate
 
cullennz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 18,688
He qualifies for parole in less than 2 years. Not sure what the big deal is.

He just can't prove the evidence against him is wrong.
__________________
I generally oppose gun control, but I support the ban on assault weapons and I support a slightly longer waiting period to purchase a gun. With today’s Internet technology we should be able to tell within 72-hours if a potential gun owner has a record.

Source: The America We Deserve, by Donald Trump, p.102 , Jul 2, 2000
cullennz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th December 2019, 10:23 PM   #1733
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 8,980
Originally Posted by cullennz View Post
He qualifies for parole in less than 2 years. Not sure what the big deal is.

He just can't prove the evidence against him is wrong.
Cully:
Did you read that paragraph I posted????
Samson is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th December 2019, 10:28 PM   #1734
cullennz
Embarrasingly illiterate
 
cullennz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 18,688
Originally Posted by Samson View Post
Cully:
Did you read that paragraph I posted????
Yeah, but we don't know exactly what they were looking at to make the decision.

All I heard today was the police found it was a fairly obviously set up fake robbery scene.

If I was going to kill someone without even really thinking about it properly one of the first things I would do is get a hair cut and tie my shoes while grabbing a bit of hair off the floor. (Not saying he did this)
__________________
I generally oppose gun control, but I support the ban on assault weapons and I support a slightly longer waiting period to purchase a gun. With today’s Internet technology we should be able to tell within 72-hours if a potential gun owner has a record.

Source: The America We Deserve, by Donald Trump, p.102 , Jul 2, 2000
cullennz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th December 2019, 10:34 PM   #1735
Hard Cheese
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Auckland, NZ
Posts: 466
Originally Posted by Samson View Post
"The defence also pointed to evidence of unidentified
fingerprints and footprints at the scene, hairs in Mrs Lundy’s hands, and unidentified
male DNA in fingernail scrapings. The Court of Appeal found none of this evidence
cogent, and we agree.97"

This is a quick way of showing these judges are stupid or wicked.
Agreed. You'd have to ask why DNA matches for the hairs and the fingernail scrapings weren't exhaustively pursued. Were DNA samples ever taken from the 100-odd suspects on the suspect list? Had they checked them against existing DNA databases? Or as soon as the police "had their man" did they just not bother? Have they been checked since? Unless these questions are answered affirmatively, it seems like a large loose end being conveniently and disgracefully ignored.
Hard Cheese is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th December 2019, 10:41 PM   #1736
Hard Cheese
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Auckland, NZ
Posts: 466
Originally Posted by cullennz View Post
He qualifies for parole in less than 2 years. Not sure what the big deal is.
The problem is not only has he been stitched up and done 20 years for it, he's probably going to get stuck like Scott Watson never getting parole because he won't admit to the stitch-up.
Hard Cheese is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th December 2019, 10:42 PM   #1737
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 8,980
Originally Posted by cullennz View Post
Yeah, but we don't know exactly what they were looking at to make the decision.

All I heard today was the police found it was a fairly obviously set up fake robbery scene.

If I was going to kill someone without even really thinking about it properly one of the first things I would do is get a hair cut and tie my shoes while grabbing a bit of hair off the floor. (Not saying he did this)
But you have planted

1. Hairs in the murder victims' hands
2. Fingerprints
3. Male stranger dna and stranger cloth fibers under fingernails of both victims.

On 2 I can confirm that all people who were known to have visited the property in the previous month were allegedly tracked and fingerprinted, no match.
My mind is slow, too slow to figure how you plant fingerprints without a detached hand.
Samson is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th December 2019, 10:43 PM   #1738
Hard Cheese
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Auckland, NZ
Posts: 466
Originally Posted by Chris_Halkides View Post
"O'Regan said on Friday the mRNA made no real difference to the case." Link. One wonders why they spent so much money on mRNA testing.
A statement that one could almost call Tipping-esque.
Hard Cheese is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th December 2019, 01:08 AM   #1739
cullennz
Embarrasingly illiterate
 
cullennz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 18,688
Originally Posted by Hard Cheese View Post
The problem is not only has he been stitched up and done 20 years for it, he's probably going to get stuck like Scott Watson never getting parole because he won't admit to the stitch-up.
Given the uncertainty and profile of the whole thing I might be utterly wrong and it could work the other way, but think he would get it
__________________
I generally oppose gun control, but I support the ban on assault weapons and I support a slightly longer waiting period to purchase a gun. With today’s Internet technology we should be able to tell within 72-hours if a potential gun owner has a record.

Source: The America We Deserve, by Donald Trump, p.102 , Jul 2, 2000
cullennz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th December 2019, 02:43 AM   #1740
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 8,980
Originally Posted by cullennz View Post
Given the uncertainty and profile of the whole thing I might be utterly wrong and it could work the other way, but think he would get it
It can't be helpful when the 8 highest ranking judges in the country all join in the chorus he is guilty beyond reasonable doubt.
However, they have all destroyed their feet with tactical nuclear weapons. They will surely be exposed.
Samson is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th December 2019, 04:49 AM   #1741
cullennz
Embarrasingly illiterate
 
cullennz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 18,688
Originally Posted by Samson View Post
It can't be helpful when the 8 highest ranking judges in the country all join in the chorus he is guilty beyond reasonable doubt.
However, they have all destroyed their feet with tactical nuclear weapons. They will surely be exposed.
Maybe they will. I don't know. Call me a doubtful for a giant conspiracy, but think they might have evidence we don't
__________________
I generally oppose gun control, but I support the ban on assault weapons and I support a slightly longer waiting period to purchase a gun. With today’s Internet technology we should be able to tell within 72-hours if a potential gun owner has a record.

Source: The America We Deserve, by Donald Trump, p.102 , Jul 2, 2000
cullennz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th December 2019, 05:20 AM   #1742
Chris_Halkides
Philosopher
 
Chris_Halkides's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 9,780
context is everything

Originally Posted by cullennz View Post
Maybe they will. I don't know. Call me a doubtful for a giant conspiracy, but think they might have evidence we don't
The centerpiece of the prosecution's case is the immunohistochemistry, but the problems with that technique have been discussed here and at the Injustice Anywhere Forum. At the very least, I think that we can agree that it was never used before this case in a forensic context and that it was being used in a way that is substantially different from how it is used diagnostically.
__________________
It is possible both to be right about an issue and to take oneself a little too seriously, but I would rather be reminded of that by a friend than a foe. (a tip of the hat to Foolmewunz)
Chris_Halkides is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th December 2019, 10:20 AM   #1743
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 8,980
Here is the judgement

https://www.courtsofnz.govt.nz/cases...=84.3735345516
Samson is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th December 2019, 11:28 AM   #1744
Chris_Halkides
Philosopher
 
Chris_Halkides's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 9,780
a nearly immaculate clean-up?

Here is an analysis from a reporter who covered the case.
__________________
It is possible both to be right about an issue and to take oneself a little too seriously, but I would rather be reminded of that by a friend than a foe. (a tip of the hat to Foolmewunz)
Chris_Halkides is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th December 2019, 04:50 PM   #1745
Blue Mountain
Resident Skeptical Hobbit
 
Blue Mountain's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Waging war on woo-woo in Winnipeg
Posts: 6,206
Did the court have nothing to say about the improbably fast road trip he supposedly took in the middle of winter?
__________________
The social illusion reigns to-day upon all the heaped-up ruins of the past, and to it belongs the future. The masses have never thirsted after truth. They turn aside from evidence that is not to their taste, preferring to deify error, if error seduce them. Gustav Le Bon, The Crowd, 1895 (from the French)
Canadian or living in Canada? PM me if you want an entry on the list of Canadians on the forum.
Blue Mountain is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th December 2019, 05:03 PM   #1746
Chris_Halkides
Philosopher
 
Chris_Halkides's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 9,780
no more Lundy Three Hundy

Originally Posted by Blue Mountain View Post
Did the court have nothing to say about the improbably fast road trip he supposedly took in the middle of winter?
This is what made the first trial into a travesty. However, the prosecution changed their story line in the 2015 retrial, claiming that Lundy did the drive in the dead of night. This timeline is a little better than the first trial's timeline, but that is a low bar indeed.
__________________
It is possible both to be right about an issue and to take oneself a little too seriously, but I would rather be reminded of that by a friend than a foe. (a tip of the hat to Foolmewunz)
Chris_Halkides is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th December 2019, 07:07 PM   #1747
Elagabalus
Philosopher
 
Elagabalus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 6,022
Originally Posted by Chris_Halkides View Post
"Traces of blue and orange paint were found in the victims' wounds, and Lundy painted his tools the same colour." If the Supreme Court believed such nonsense, it is not surprising that they did not grant him a new trial.

"O'Regan said on Friday the mRNA made no real difference to the case." Link. One wonders why they spent so much money on mRNA testing.
That caught my eye, as well. Couldn't someone besides Lundy use Lundy's previously painted tools as a murder weapon? Or can only Lundy use his own tools? Never borrow a man's tools!!

Elagabalus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th December 2019, 10:33 PM   #1748
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 8,980
Originally Posted by Chris_Halkides View Post
Here is an analysis from a reporter who covered the case.
Here is an analyisis from kiwiblog today:

wreck1080
He may have gotten away with it had only he destroyed his clothing.

His planning was fairly meticulous, except for that.

Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0REPLY REPORTDECEMBER 21, 2019 9:23AM
Samson is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd December 2019, 09:54 PM   #1749
Fixit
Thinker
 
Join Date: May 2016
Posts: 224
Originally Posted by cullennz View Post
Yeah, but we don't know exactly what they were looking at to make the decision.

All I heard today was the police found it was a fairly obviously set up fake robbery scene.

If I was going to kill someone without even really thinking about it properly one of the first things I would do is get a hair cut and tie my shoes while grabbing a bit of hair off the floor. (Not saying he did this)
There is no evidence that the break-in was set up other than a claim about blood being on the wrong side of the window. What is the right side or wrong side of a window that points to a set up? As that is an inference, I have a stronger one: police couldn't determine the source of the fingerprints or footprints found in the area so used the 'old trick' (thanks Maxwell Smart) and blamed Lundy.
Fixit is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd December 2019, 10:00 PM   #1750
Fixit
Thinker
 
Join Date: May 2016
Posts: 224
Originally Posted by Elagabalus View Post
That caught my eye, as well. Couldn't someone besides Lundy use Lundy's previously painted tools as a murder weapon? Or can only Lundy use his own tools? Never borrow a man's tools!!

Of course they can. However they may also have their own, or may stolen some. There had been other break-ins in the area. The SC quoted much first trial evidence but there has been considerable changes as to the paint analysis since then. Secondly the scientist used language that the paint 'couldn't be excluded' which by no means that it was included either. Finally nobody puts paint on the blades or striking edges of their tools.
Fixit is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd December 2019, 10:02 PM   #1751
Fixit
Thinker
 
Join Date: May 2016
Posts: 224
Originally Posted by cullennz View Post
Given the uncertainty and profile of the whole thing I might be utterly wrong and it could work the other way, but think he would get it
Tamihere and Pora never admitted guilt both were paroled, Pora later exonerated.
Fixit is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd December 2019, 10:40 PM   #1752
Fixit
Thinker
 
Join Date: May 2016
Posts: 224
This is a case where fingernail DNA freed one man and led to another man confessing.

https://www.msn.com/en-nz/news/world...cid=spartandhp
Fixit is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd December 2019, 01:54 PM   #1753
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 8,980
Originally Posted by Fixit View Post
This is a case where fingernail DNA freed one man and led to another man confessing.

https://www.msn.com/en-nz/news/world...cid=spartandhp
Nice quote from the link.
I am now of the belief America is way ahead of New Zealand in this seemingly obvious notion:

“The highest responsibility of a prosecutor is to see that justice is done and ensuring that we have the correct individual charged is a baseline responsibility,”
Samson is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th December 2019, 06:08 AM   #1754
Chris_Halkides
Philosopher
 
Chris_Halkides's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 9,780
As the stomach turns

From the judgment: "Professor Michael Horowitz, agreed that it would normally take six to eight hours for a stomach to empty after eating such a meal, assuming an average rate of digestion."

This is the wrong way to look at the question. The stomach contents become chyme (in which individual food particles are not discernible) long before the stomach is completely empty.
__________________
It is possible both to be right about an issue and to take oneself a little too seriously, but I would rather be reminded of that by a friend than a foe. (a tip of the hat to Foolmewunz)
Chris_Halkides is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th December 2019, 06:18 AM   #1755
Chris_Halkides
Philosopher
 
Chris_Halkides's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 9,780
cooking spatter

"The ESR elutions were tested in 2014 by Elizabeth Wictum, an expert who specialises in forensic analysis of animal DNA. Her tests included a “meat ID” test, which is a very sensitive mitochondrial DNA test capable of detecting a smaller quantity of DNA than is found in a single cell. She identified DNA of pig and cattle in both samples and also sheep in the shirt pocket sample. The results were weakly positive, and the quantities present “barely detectable”. She found the evidence consistent with food spatter from cooking sausages, which we find an unlikely source of stains found to contain a large quantity of central nervous system tissue and nothing else. The quantity of animal DNA found was very much less than that of the human DNA also observable in the samples she tested."

I have not seen cooking spatter in the DNA forensic literature that I have read. Unless a study of the amount of DNA in cooking spatter exists, Ms.Wictum was engaging in unscientific speculation.
__________________
It is possible both to be right about an issue and to take oneself a little too seriously, but I would rather be reminded of that by a friend than a foe. (a tip of the hat to Foolmewunz)
Chris_Halkides is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th December 2019, 01:43 PM   #1756
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 8,980
Originally Posted by Chris_Halkides View Post
From the judgment: "Professor Michael Horowitz, agreed that it would normally take six to eight hours for a stomach to empty after eating such a meal, assuming an average rate of digestion."

This is the wrong way to look at the question. The stomach contents become chyme (in which individual food particles are not discernible) long before the stomach is completely empty.
There was one photo, from Christine's stomach, retained as evidence. All others were deleted.
This photo was of undigested chips not MacDonalds which Christine must have eaten soon before turning the computer off and going to bed.
Because Dr James Pang described contents recognisable as fish dinner, in order to sustain a notion of having just eaten for a 7pm tod, as in the first trial, the photographs of Amber's stomach were unsuitable as evidence, so deleted. Her stomach was described by the policeman, in his notebook, watching the autopsy, as containing quite a bit of food.

So putting all that together, her stomach had chyme from the one meal eaten about 6pm, which some hours later was still present.
The computer was turned off at 10 52 pm and Mark had a cast iron alibi with the careful driving theory till 3 am. Therefore this chyme would need to have lasted 9 hours, rated as impossible by all the science and literature, except:

In the appeal hearing prosecutor Morgan stated that Amber must have eaten more food later, to which Winkelmann j stated

"You are arguing backwards".
Yes Morgan was arguing backwards alright.

If they were slain before 3 am (and incidentally the judges and prosecutors routinely advance this to 2 30am, conveniently forgetting this was purported to be a careful fuel conserving drive averaging 100km/hour where detection is also deemed fatal to the plan, so another remarkable and deliberate deceit by the court to make the numbers look better), then it was not Mark Lundy.

The simplest scenario is a t.o.d. soon after the computer was turned off to deliver autopsies with chyme in Amber's stomach and undigested chips in Christine's. But heh, how does this fit with unanimous appeal court and supreme court findings?

The court delivered its judgment in Wellington on Friday, having heard his appeal in August, with Justice Mark O'Regan saying Lundy's appeal was dismissed because the country's highest court was satisfied he was guilty beyond all reasonable doubt.

https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/cri...eclines-appeal

eta there is an email from Horowitz saying Lundy is innocent on the stomach evidence, I do not believe he allows a meal of that sort to last 8 hours in the stomach, and am not sure where this came from.

Last edited by Samson; 28th December 2019 at 01:55 PM.
Samson is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th December 2019, 01:59 PM   #1757
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 8,980
Originally Posted by Chris_Halkides View Post
"The ESR elutions were tested in 2014 by Elizabeth Wictum, an expert who specialises in forensic analysis of animal DNA. Her tests included a “meat ID” test, which is a very sensitive mitochondrial DNA test capable of detecting a smaller quantity of DNA than is found in a single cell. She identified DNA of pig and cattle in both samples and also sheep in the shirt pocket sample. The results were weakly positive, and the quantities present “barely detectable”. She found the evidence consistent with food spatter from cooking sausages, which we find an unlikely source of stains found to contain a large quantity of central nervous system tissue and nothing else. The quantity of animal DNA found was very much less than that of the human DNA also observable in the samples she tested."

I have not seen cooking spatter in the DNA forensic literature that I have read. Unless a study of the amount of DNA in cooking spatter exists, Ms.Wictum was engaging in unscientific speculation.
Chris:
I am not sure how you reach this conclusion.
The best fit theory seems to be that the specks were fatty cooking splatter, yielding tiny traces to the elution of the animal contents.
There was no dna established to still exist in these specks in the paraffin blocks, let alone that of Christine. This absence is completely ignored by the supreme court when talking of dna association showing Christine's brain.
Samson is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th December 2019, 11:09 PM   #1758
Hard Cheese
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Auckland, NZ
Posts: 466
Originally Posted by Samson View Post
There was no dna established to still exist in these specks in the paraffin blocks, let alone that of Christine. This absence is completely ignored by the supreme court when talking of dna association showing Christine's brain.
So there was enough of the material in the paraffin block for Dr. Miller to say (100% guaranteed by him) that it was CNS tissue, but there was never any DNA (from Christine or any other person or animal) in that tissue? How is that even possible? I'm sure I read in the transcripts statements from various scientific experts that brain-specific cellular structures were visible in the samples - how can these be DNA free?
Hard Cheese is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th December 2019, 03:10 AM   #1759
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 8,980
Originally Posted by Hard Cheese View Post
So there was enough of the material in the paraffin block for Dr. Miller to say (100% guaranteed by him) that it was CNS tissue, but there was never any DNA (from Christine or any other person or animal) in that tissue? How is that even possible? I'm sure I read in the transcripts statements from various scientific experts that brain-specific cellular structures were visible in the samples - how can these be DNA free?
I thought I posted this here but this is from IA..............................

Morgan is the prosecutor, WMN and Asher are appeal court judges from the 2017 october hearing

"Here is a more complete transcript of the appeal hearing re the dna and how it relates to the shirt "alleged cns" spots.

Morgan: And the mRNA evidence which is simply a part of the evidence was one of the strands upon which the crown relied to negate the suggestion and it was nothing more than a suggestion that it might be central nervous system tissue from the foodchain.

snip

I have listed 12 features of the crown case and the first three are this very [point

26.1 CNS tissue found in two spots on the shirt he was wearing 26.2 The spots were subject to chemical testing suggesting the probable presence of blood in the stains, I should just add there that the neuropathologists said that we could see blood, we could see blood vessels and 26.3 the pieces of fabric with that central nervous system tissue on them were subjected to dna analysis and the outcome was a strong finding in terms of the quantity and quality of the dna of the deceased CL went well beyond a trace and was the sort of reaction that suggested blood or tissue.

snip

and this blood 26 2 was a test carried out by Sutherland at an early stage before he cut them out of the fabric and sent them off to ESR

Winkmn so 26 2 is on the small areas of fabric

MGN Yes

Asher: Yes this topic is one we need elucidation from you so we have the dna lifted in what has been described as quite considerable quantities . We also know the defence argument is that is not unusual in husband wife situation.And it seems it is not suggested that the scientific evidence shows the dna comes directly from the tissue that has been identified as CNS tissue. That's obviously a very important mssing link.

MGN Thats the science, the science does not establish that a CNS cell was a cell from Christine Lundy by means of dna analysis, that is accepted. The question of course is how do you get on this tiny little bit of fabric CNS tissue that has been smeared into the fabric? Its the only tissue that the neuropathologists can see, it must have been applied when it was fresh, because its such a small quantity it crumbles and you can't smear it in, and then the little piece of material, in fact its two pieces of material which sort of adds to the weight, one above the bicep and one on the front of the shirt are eluted into a beaker soak, and this according to ESR removes about 20% of the biological material in the stain, and the only dna is CL, and this is the inference, this is an inference case. There is a passage in KOS where he makes the very point Asher has just made, the science can't do this, its a matter of inference.

WMN Can I ask 2 questions did the elution for each spot produce dna?

MGN yes

WMN. And was the dab slide or paraffin block taken from the shirt tested for dna? Were the remnants tested for dna?

MGN It didn't work. There were a number of methodologies looked at but we only used those relevant to the case.

WMN. Did they produce any dna readings from those samples?

MGN From the tisue in the fabric blocks themselves answer no.

WMN And the tissue on the dab slides?

MGN The tissue on the dab slides was too degraded to do anything with at all.

Last edited by Samson; 29th December 2019 at 03:18 AM.
Samson is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th December 2019, 09:09 PM   #1760
Hard Cheese
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Auckland, NZ
Posts: 466
Originally Posted by Samson View Post
26.3 the pieces of fabric with that central nervous system tissue on them were subjected to dna analysis and the outcome was a strong finding in terms of the quantity and quality of the dna of the deceased CL went well beyond a trace and was the sort of reaction that suggested blood or tissue.

snip

and this blood 26 2 was a test carried out by Sutherland at an early stage before he cut them out of the fabric and sent them off to ESR

Winkmn so 26 2 is on the small areas of fabric

MGN Yes

Asher: Yes this topic is one we need elucidation from you so we have the dna lifted in what has been described as quite considerable quantities . We also know the defence argument is that is not unusual in husband wife situation.And it seems it is not suggested that the scientific evidence shows the dna comes directly from the tissue that has been identified as CNS tissue. That's obviously a very important mssing link.

MGN Thats the science, the science does not establish that a CNS cell was a cell from Christine Lundy by means of dna analysis, that is accepted. The question of course is how do you get on this tiny little bit of fabric CNS tissue that has been smeared into the fabric? Its the only tissue that the neuropathologists can see, it must have been applied when it was fresh, because its such a small quantity it crumbles and you can't smear it in, and then the little piece of material, in fact its two pieces of material which sort of adds to the weight, one above the bicep and one on the front of the shirt are eluted into a beaker soak, and this according to ESR removes about 20% of the biological material in the stain, and the only dna is CL, and this is the inference, this is an inference case. There is a passage in KOS where he makes the very point Asher has just made, the science can't do this, its a matter of inference.

WMN Can I ask 2 questions did the elution for each spot produce dna?

MGN yes

WMN. And was the dab slide or paraffin block taken from the shirt tested for dna? Were the remnants tested for dna?

MGN It didn't work. There were a number of methodologies looked at but we only used those relevant to the case.

WMN. Did they produce any dna readings from those samples?

MGN From the tisue in the fabric blocks themselves answer no.
There seems to be some black magic about these stains, or at least the way the results have been interpreted. The stains were eluted, removing 20% of the biological material, and strong traces of CL's DNA found in the solution. Presumably the DNA could have equally come from the stain or the fabric, there's no way to tell. And I still don't see how there was no trace of DNA in the fragment of CNS tissue, particularly if it was so readily identifiable as CNS by the Crown experts. It seems like Asher hits the nail on the head here, Morgan accepts the CL DNA connection as only an "inference", yet doesn't have a problem standing up in front of a jury claiming "no man should have his wife's brain on his shirt". Read one way, a true statement, but interpreted in context of the trial, presenting inference as fact.
Hard Cheese is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Trials and Errors

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:07 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.