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 Australia cases , Australia incidents , dingoes , Lindy Chamberlain , murder cases

Reply
Old 18th January 2017, 06:08 AM   #121
catsmate
No longer the 1
 
catsmate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 19,536
Originally Posted by Samson View Post
John Bryson hits hard here.

Jeremy Bamber and Mark Lundy need a similar heavy hitter to correct the monstrous crimes against them, both convicted with similar bogus forensics and condemned by vengeful villagers.
Do you really have to drag your obsessions into every thread?
__________________
As human right is always something given, it always in reality reduces to the right which men give, "concede," to each other. If the right to existence is conceded to new-born children, then they have the right; if it is not conceded to them, as was the case among the Spartans and ancient Romans, then they do not have it. For only society can give or concede it to them; they themselves cannot take it, or give it to themselves.
catsmate 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 January 2017, 04:22 PM   #122
Chris_Halkides
Philosopher
 
Chris_Halkides's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 9,201
Reforms? We don't need no stinking' reforms.

catsmate,

I can appreciate that you might disagree with bringing up other specific cases in this thread. However, there is a larger point that at least deserves to be mentioned. The Chamberlain case should be one from which to learn and to propose reforms. Yet I still perceive the same sloppy, biased approach to forensics in various criminal justice systems in more recent cases. That having been said, there are aspects to the Australian justice system in this regard that I admire.
__________________
“Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had
happened.” – Winston Churchill
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 18th January 2017, 11:59 PM   #123
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 7,910
Originally Posted by catsmate View Post
Do you really have to drag your obsessions into every thread?
It is true these cases are obsessions, but the Chamberlain case is partially resolved.
I know from a specific conversation with an ex Queenslander the day she was finally exonerated that partial is as good as it will get, he immediately wheeled out a list of reasons it was she who killed her baby and not a dingo, and he passed away soon after. There is no finality in the prevailing generation.

I bracketed the three cases because this was the first of three involving bogus forensics that secured convictions, and they are interdependent judicial systems.
You may have your own opinions, but the facts are immutable, there is one of these cases on which we profoundly disagree, which is regrettable for the victim in that case.
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 January 2017, 08:36 AM   #124
catsmate
No longer the 1
 
catsmate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 19,536
Originally Posted by Chris_Halkides View Post
catsmate,

I can appreciate that you might disagree with bringing up other specific cases in this thread. However, there is a larger point that at least deserves to be mentioned. The Chamberlain case should be one from which to learn and to propose reforms. Yet I still perceive the same sloppy, biased approach to forensics in various criminal justice systems in more recent cases. That having been said, there are aspects to the Australian justice system in this regard that I admire.
This is indeed true, if you remember from the original Chamberlain thread I was highly critical of both the forensic "evidence" in general and Cameron's contribution in particular (he'd already been criticised by one Royal Commission about his dubious evidence). If I might quite myself:
Quote:
The case features two of my personal bugbears with expert testimony.
[Firstly a little background, I work in IT, have a speciality in security and digital forensics, and have testified as an expert witness.]

Primus: the "celebrity expert". This isn't common today, but there have been experts whose testimony was grossly over-valued because of who they were and the reputation they had built up. Spilsbury ("The Lethal Witness") and Simpson are examples of this; their testimony wasn't questioned, even when it was felt to be wrong, because of their reputation. People were hanged because of this over confidence in expert testimony.
James Cameron, whose far from expert opinion figured in the Chamberlain case, is a lesser example of this.

Secundus: inability to properly examine expert testimony. As you pointed out the scientific evidence was very convincing in the Chamberlain case, and it shouldn't have been. It was pretty terrible. But it wasn't challenged, it was allowed to stand and Lindy Chamberlain was jailed because of this.
In my opinion the destruction of the samples and plates used in testing denied the defense the ability to properly cross-examine the scientific evidence and should have lead to it being deemed inadmissible.

Ultimus: Barristers. A major part of his dislike of the adversarial justice system is down to barristers. This doesn't appear to have been a major factor in the Chamberlain case, though I haven't (and don't plan to) read the court transcripts.
Barristers want to win regardless of the truth; science should be about the truth.

However Samson seems to me to be determined to drag his obsession with certain cases into every possible thread.
__________________
As human right is always something given, it always in reality reduces to the right which men give, "concede," to each other. If the right to existence is conceded to new-born children, then they have the right; if it is not conceded to them, as was the case among the Spartans and ancient Romans, then they do not have it. For only society can give or concede it to them; they themselves cannot take it, or give it to themselves.
catsmate 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 January 2017, 08:39 AM   #125
catsmate
No longer the 1
 
catsmate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 19,536
Originally Posted by Samson View Post
It is true these cases are obsessions, but the Chamberlain case is partially resolved.
I know from a specific conversation with an ex Queenslander the day she was finally exonerated that partial is as good as it will get, he immediately wheeled out a list of reasons it was she who killed her baby and not a dingo, and he passed away soon after. There is no finality in the prevailing generation.

I bracketed the three cases because this was the first of three involving bogus forensics that secured convictions, and they are interdependent judicial systems.
You may have your own opinions, but the facts are immutable, there is one of these cases on which we profoundly disagree, which is regrettable for the victim in that case.
The Chamberlains have been exonerated as far as is possible in law. Yes some idiots will continue to believe in their guilt but they're in there with the JFK conspiracy nuts.

However your attempt to conflate the standard of forensic evidence in the Chamberlain and Bamber cases is, to be generous to you, disingenuous. Jeremy Bamber is guilty and there is copious evidence of this fact.
__________________
As human right is always something given, it always in reality reduces to the right which men give, "concede," to each other. If the right to existence is conceded to new-born children, then they have the right; if it is not conceded to them, as was the case among the Spartans and ancient Romans, then they do not have it. For only society can give or concede it to them; they themselves cannot take it, or give it to themselves.
catsmate 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 January 2017, 08:43 AM   #126
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 7,910
Originally Posted by catsmate View Post
The Chamberlains have been exonerated as far as is possible in law. Yes some idiots will continue to believe in their guilt but they're in there with the JFK conspiracy nuts.

However your attempt to conflate the standard of forensic evidence in the Chamberlain and Bamber cases is, to be generous to you, disingenuous. Jeremy Bamber is guilty and there is copious evidence of this fact.
In fact, in serious threads concerning the Chamberlain, Bamber and Lundy cases there is not one guilter remaining.
This is clear if you join Injustice Anywhere forum.
Here is the Bamber thread to dissect the physical evidence

http://www.injusticeanywhereforum.co...p?f=123&t=2931

Last edited by Samson; 19th January 2017 at 08:46 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 19th January 2017, 08:50 AM   #127
MikeG
Now. Do it now.
 
MikeG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 24,084
Originally Posted by Samson View Post
In fact, in serious threads concerning the Chamberlain, Bamber and Lundy cases there is not one guilter remaining.
This is clear if you join Injustice Anywhere forum.
Here is the Bamber thread to dissect the physical evidence

http://www.injusticeanywhereforum.co...p?f=123&t=2931
That's only because the conversation sunk to the idiocy of blaming Bamber's continued incarceration on Theresa May. If people behave like morons, don't expect non-morons to hang around.
__________________
"The Conservatives want to keep wogs out and march boldly back to the 1950s when Britain still had an Empire and blacks, women, poofs and Irish knew their place." The Don That's what we've sunk to here.
MikeG 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 January 2017, 08:57 AM   #128
catsmate
No longer the 1
 
catsmate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 19,536
Originally Posted by MikeG View Post
That's only because the conversation sunk to the idiocy of blaming Bamber's continued incarceration on Theresa May. If people behave like morons, don't expect non-morons to hang around.
Indeed. If the loons have chased off anyone with a working brain then such unanimity isn't unexpected. Rather like some of the fora peddling SEP11 conspiracies.
__________________
As human right is always something given, it always in reality reduces to the right which men give, "concede," to each other. If the right to existence is conceded to new-born children, then they have the right; if it is not conceded to them, as was the case among the Spartans and ancient Romans, then they do not have it. For only society can give or concede it to them; they themselves cannot take it, or give it to themselves.
catsmate 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 January 2017, 09:20 AM   #129
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 7,910
Originally Posted by MikeG View Post
That's only because the conversation sunk to the idiocy of blaming Bamber's continued incarceration on Theresa May. If people behave like morons, don't expect non-morons to hang around.
Originally Posted by catsmate View Post
Indeed. If the loons have chased off anyone with a working brain then such unanimity isn't unexpected. Rather like some of the fora peddling SEP11 conspiracies.
Lamentable.
The evidence in every case is dissected properly on IA, and the science finds the safe path, as it does in aviation.
Lindy Chamberlain was exonerated by science, as will be Bamber and Lundy. It is the only way.
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 January 2017, 09:33 AM   #130
MikeG
Now. Do it now.
 
MikeG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 24,084
Originally Posted by Samson View Post
Lamentable.
The evidence in every case is dissected properly on IA, and the science finds the safe path, as it does in aviation.
Lindy Chamberlain was exonerated by science, as will be Bamber and Lundy. It is the only way.
Evasion noted.

Lindy Chamberlain is innocent. Her case has no equivalence with Bamber, who is guilty, other than abysmal police and forensic practice. Neither of them were in any way handicapped by Theresa May, but that didn't stop you whittering on about it for more than a week. When you've nothing to contribute other than cheerleading, you can find yourself fighting facts with erroneous trivia, even after your embarrassing errors have been pointed out.
__________________
"The Conservatives want to keep wogs out and march boldly back to the 1950s when Britain still had an Empire and blacks, women, poofs and Irish knew their place." The Don That's what we've sunk to here.
MikeG 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 January 2017, 09:46 AM   #131
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 7,910
Originally Posted by MikeG View Post
Evasion noted.

Lindy Chamberlain is innocent. Her case has no equivalence with Bamber, who is guilty, other than abysmal police and forensic practice. Neither of them were in any way handicapped by Theresa May, but that didn't stop you whittering on about it for more than a week. When you've nothing to contribute other than cheerleading, you can find yourself fighting facts with erroneous trivia, even after your embarrassing errors have been pointed out.
There is equivalence in the three cases, which is why I bracket them.
1. Interdependent judicial systems
2. Bogus and fraudulent singular item forensics necessary conditions for conviction.
3. The villagers join with false authority in the ferocious rampage.

It takes government intervention to compensate. There are no independent processes in the three countries, in England Teresa May will be required to play her part.
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 January 2017, 09:55 AM   #132
catsmate
No longer the 1
 
catsmate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 19,536
Originally Posted by Samson View Post
Lamentable.
The evidence in every case is dissected properly on IA, and the science finds the safe path, as it does in aviation.
Lindy Chamberlain was exonerated by science, as will be Bamber and Lundy. It is the only way.

You started a thread on the Banner case here, remember? Your claims were ripped apart and you refused to even address many points.
If you've got some actual evidence this time why not bump that thread.

I for one have no intention of joining another forum just to participate in a puerile echo-chamber.
__________________
As human right is always something given, it always in reality reduces to the right which men give, "concede," to each other. If the right to existence is conceded to new-born children, then they have the right; if it is not conceded to them, as was the case among the Spartans and ancient Romans, then they do not have it. For only society can give or concede it to them; they themselves cannot take it, or give it to themselves.
catsmate 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 January 2017, 09:59 AM   #133
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 7,910
The crucial point is that no crime reconstruction can properly incorporate Lindy Jeremy or Lundy.

Lindy was alleged to bleed her baby out in the front seat of a car in a crowded campsite then place her in the boot and disappear her.
How?
Similarly Jeremy is supposed to march his family around at gunpoint before killing them
How?

Lundy had no petrol but drove 450 kilometers
How?

Simple obstacles confound these cases and without overcoming them it becomes dingoes sisters and gangsters.

Last edited by Samson; 19th January 2017 at 10:05 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 19th January 2017, 10:07 AM   #134
MikeG
Now. Do it now.
 
MikeG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 24,084
Originally Posted by Samson View Post
......in England Teresa May will be required to play her part.
Ah, will play her part. Will. Future tense. Right, so why spend more than a week blaming her for the continued incarceration (past tense)? Why refuse to acknowledge that the Home Office hasn't had any powers over criminal justice since the Ministry of Justice was split off from the Home Office in 2007? That's the sort of mundane, stubborn idiocy that drives sensible people away from otherwise meaningful discussion. Getting the Chamberlain case right (and, FFS, who hasn't since the cardigan was found?) doesn't mean you've got any sort of a clue in the other cases you obsess about.
__________________
"The Conservatives want to keep wogs out and march boldly back to the 1950s when Britain still had an Empire and blacks, women, poofs and Irish knew their place." The Don That's what we've sunk to here.
MikeG 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 January 2017, 10:18 AM   #135
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 7,910
Originally Posted by MikeG View Post
Ah, will play her part. Will. Future tense. Right, so why spend more than a week blaming her for the continued incarceration (past tense)? Why refuse to acknowledge that the Home Office hasn't had any powers over criminal justice since the Ministry of Justice was split off from the Home Office in 2007? That's the sort of mundane, stubborn idiocy that drives sensible people away from otherwise meaningful discussion. Getting the Chamberlain case right (and, FFS, who hasn't since the cardigan was found?) doesn't mean you've got any sort of a clue in the other cases you obsess about.
I slipped in the future tense to pacify.
Let us look though, a park ranger warned of likely dingo attacks, so finding the jacket was unnecessary. We had a viable alternative suspect, dingo, and a completely impossible crime narrative as outlined above.
Similarly, we had a husband warning of danger to kids, an alternative suspect, sister, and a completely impossible crime narrative.

I am still puzzled why you don't see parallels and simple logic.
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 January 2017, 12:52 PM   #136
catsmate
No longer the 1
 
catsmate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 19,536
Originally Posted by MikeG View Post
Ah, will play her part. Will. Future tense. Right, so why spend more than a week blaming her for the continued incarceration (past tense)? Why refuse to acknowledge that the Home Office hasn't had any powers over criminal justice since the Ministry of Justice was split off from the Home Office in 2007? That's the sort of mundane, stubborn idiocy that drives sensible people away from otherwise meaningful discussion. Getting the Chamberlain case right (and, FFS, who hasn't since the cardigan was found?) doesn't mean you've got any sort of a clue in the other cases you obsess about.
Well May will probably ensure that the murderous psychopath Bamber has no access to the ECHR in future.
__________________
As human right is always something given, it always in reality reduces to the right which men give, "concede," to each other. If the right to existence is conceded to new-born children, then they have the right; if it is not conceded to them, as was the case among the Spartans and ancient Romans, then they do not have it. For only society can give or concede it to them; they themselves cannot take it, or give it to themselves.
catsmate 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 January 2017, 01:01 PM   #137
MikeG
Now. Do it now.
 
MikeG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 24,084
Originally Posted by catsmate View Post
Well May will probably ensure that the murderous psychopath Bamber has no access to the ECHR in future.
Interestingly, they have just confirmed that Britain has the right to give prisoners a whole-life tariff. We have enough safeguards in place such that their human rights aren't infringed. So the ECHR won't be coming to Bamber's rescue.
__________________
"The Conservatives want to keep wogs out and march boldly back to the 1950s when Britain still had an Empire and blacks, women, poofs and Irish knew their place." The Don That's what we've sunk to here.
MikeG 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 January 2017, 01:31 PM   #138
catsmate
No longer the 1
 
catsmate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 19,536
Originally Posted by MikeG View Post
Interestingly, they have just confirmed that Britain has the right to give prisoners a whole-life tariff. We have enough safeguards in place such that their human rights aren't infringed. So the ECHR won't be coming to Bamber's rescue.
He might find some other time wasting excuse for an appeal.
__________________
As human right is always something given, it always in reality reduces to the right which men give, "concede," to each other. If the right to existence is conceded to new-born children, then they have the right; if it is not conceded to them, as was the case among the Spartans and ancient Romans, then they do not have it. For only society can give or concede it to them; they themselves cannot take it, or give it to themselves.
catsmate 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 30th May 2017, 08:27 AM   #139
Chris_Halkides
Philosopher
 
Chris_Halkides's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 9,201
putting forensics on trial

John Bryson's account of the Lindy Chamberlain case (the book Evil Angels) included a discussion of the prosecution's closing arguments on p. 515. Phillips, an attorney for the defense, objected to certain aspects of Prosecutor Barker's remarks in front of the judge but not the jury, wishing the judge to address certain points. "First, Barker had told the jury that criticisms of Mrs Kuhl and Dr. Baxter [the prosecution's principal forensic witnesses about fetal blood] cast doubt on convictions in cases in which they testified elsewhere. Phillips said, 'In our submission there is a danger, once that is said, that the jury may feel that an acquittal would in some way operate professionally as a reflection on Mrs Kuhl and Dr Baxter. Of course, it wouldn't do any such thing.'" The judge appeared to agree with Mr. Phillips. Mr. Barker might have been implying that to doubt the prosecution's forensic evidence in the Chamberlain case, one has to doubt forensic evidence regarding the presence of blood more generally. This is a fallacy in that a technique might be fine, but its application or interpretation in a particular case could well be overstated or incorrect.
__________________
“Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had
happened.” – Winston Churchill
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 30th May 2017, 11:32 AM   #140
Chris_Halkides
Philosopher
 
Chris_Halkides's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 9,201
Overstating the value of the ortho-tolidine presumptive test for blood

Mrs Joy Kuhl gave evidence at the second inquest, the one that immediately preceded the trial, as well as at the trial itself. Her testimony in the inquest about the ortho-tolidene presumptive test for blood is covered on and near p. 317 in John Bryson's book. During cross examination she was asked about whether or not there were substances that might react in the same way.
{quote}
'Not the same reaction.' She went through the alternatives. 'Plant peroxidases tend to give a much greener colouration than blood does. It is a slower reaction. Chemical compounds which give false positives generally give a positive first-stage reaction, which blood never does. The colour development from a blood-type reaction very, very distinctive, particularly in the hands of an experienced operator. And I consider myself an experienced operator.'
{end quote}
As someone who has written about presumptive blood tests, I would like to evaluate several claims made in this passage. One is that there is a difference in color when blood reacts versus other substances. I know of no documentation in the literature which supports this, and given that the same compound is being produced no matter what the catalyst, I don't see how there could be a difference in color. Two is that plant peroxidases give a slower reaction. This is possible (though I have not seen it in the literature myself). However, if a blue-green color is taken as a positive result in a set period of time (and the protocols I have read for the related Kastle-Meyer and TMB reactions do specify a time), then the relative speeds of various reactions are a distraction: if you see the color, the result is positive. Three is her claim that most substances give a positive at the first stage of the reaction. Based on the chemistry of the common presumptive blood tests, I would expect oxidizing agents to produce color at the first stage of this reaction. However, the protocols I have seen indicate that one discontinues the test when this happens. On the other hand rust and copper dust give positive second stage reactions.

The bottom line is that Mrs Kuhl is making statements that suggest that the ortho-tolidine test is more nearly specific for blood than it actually is. This is a common problem with respect to presumptive tests and the law.
__________________
“Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had
happened.” – Winston Churchill

Last edited by Chris_Halkides; 30th May 2017 at 11:35 AM.
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 31st May 2017, 05:52 PM   #141
Chris_Halkides
Philosopher
 
Chris_Halkides's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 9,201
quasi-substrate control in the oath-tolidine test

Dr. T Raymond wrote, "The original trial scientist, Mrs Joy Kuhl obtained positive (ortho-tolidine) presumptive tests for blood in a number of areas in the Torana – including the carpet, bolt hole region, nearside seat hinge, console and items that were purported to have been in the car – a chamois, a towel and a pair of nail scissors. Some of these areas were incidentally inaccessible without the removal (using appropriate screwdriver) of surface panels. The use of ortho-tolidine reagent was driven by the belief that it was a reliable and definitive test for blood when used in experienced hands. This is both misleading and untrue – particularly where old denatured blood is concerned. The Chamberlains lived in a copper mining town and copper is known to be one element that yields false positive results with ortho-tolidine reagent! Unfortunately early statements actually stated that ‘traces of blood were detected’ on the strength of these presumptive reactions alone."

A test from an inaccessible area is a kind of substrate control. When the substrate control is positive, it erodes (partially or completely) the meaning of a positive result elsewhere.
__________________
“Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had
happened.” – Winston Churchill
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 5th June 2017, 11:11 AM   #142
Chris_Halkides
Philosopher
 
Chris_Halkides's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 9,201
a prescient passage

In Evil Angels, p. 129, John Bryson wrote (circa 1986), "There might be, in the molecular deep of the blood, unique matter identifying the tissue with an individual, rather than a [blood] class. Some biologists think so, but science has not yet got there."
__________________
“Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had
happened.” – Winston Churchill
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 5th June 2017, 12:04 PM   #143
catsmate
No longer the 1
 
catsmate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 19,536
Originally Posted by Chris_Halkides View Post
In Evil Angels, p. 129, John Bryson wrote (circa 1986), "There might be, in the molecular deep of the blood, unique matter identifying the tissue with an individual, rather than a [blood] class. Some biologists think so, but science has not yet got there."
Only two years late.
__________________
As human right is always something given, it always in reality reduces to the right which men give, "concede," to each other. If the right to existence is conceded to new-born children, then they have the right; if it is not conceded to them, as was the case among the Spartans and ancient Romans, then they do not have it. For only society can give or concede it to them; they themselves cannot take it, or give it to themselves.
catsmate 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 June 2017, 04:23 PM   #144
Chris_Halkides
Philosopher
 
Chris_Halkides's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 9,201
DNA profiling has come a long way

Originally Posted by catsmate View Post
Only two years late.
The first generation of DNA profiling could not individualize a stain. Even nowadays a partial profile is not sufficient. Have you read Bryson's book, and if so, what did you think of it?
__________________
“Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had
happened.” – Winston Churchill
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 5th June 2017, 10:56 PM   #145
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 7,910
Originally Posted by Chris_Halkides View Post
The first generation of DNA profiling could not individualize a stain. Even nowadays a partial profile is not sufficient. Have you read Bryson's book, and if so, what did you think of it?
I just bought it, will read with interest and report back.
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
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 09:30 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2018, 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.