P
Paul Nutteing
Guest
From
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/allnews/content_objectid=13814385_method=full_siteid=50143_headline=-
RAPE-CASE-JURY-PICKED-name_page.html or http://tinyurl.com/22sdr
"Judge Mr Justice Owen told the group any of them involved in a mass DNA screening by police in the
previous two-and-a-half years could not sit on the jury. "
Is this because the prosecution want to not reveal the mechanism. ? Only 3,000 swabs were taken from
people in a catchment area otherwise at least 4 counties, let alone Birmingham, not the usual area
of a city or a village only. It was never revealed, the pre-selection criterion for only 3,000.
This is my usenet post of 23 Oct 2002
http://groups.google.co.uk/groups?selm=1622f08.0210230932.46f1be17%40posting.google.com&output=gpla-
in "The only information (as released to the media) the police have sofar is he is white , aged 30
to 50 and may live in London, Surrey, Kent or Berkshire. But they do have the suspect's DNA profile.
So how come they are only swabbing 3000 targets to find a match. Buried in these DNA profiles is an
indication of the person's ethnic background. I know from my own DNA profile just concerning the
alleles (numbers) on just 2 of the 10 loci (markers) ie D18S51 and D16S51 I or anyone else would
know I was 20 times more likely to be white than black (true). With the computer and data systems
available to the police I am sure there are combinations that would similarly give a greater
likelihood of being say Greek or Polish or Zambian origin or whatever. From that construct a list of
surnames of that origin. Especially if this rapist's profile has thrown up a rare locus/allele
combination. "
As it transpired the relevant ancestry seems to have been Polish, I know he is of German origin, but
the surname and first name ,hence police interest, is Polish .
[ Iwould posit that the DNA profile of the rapist contained at least one D8S1179 allele 16 and
D2S1338 allele 17, maybe others less marked differentially but cumulatively more common in
Poland than general UK population. ] It is a lot easier to find a matches if preselected from
20 numbers in a DNA profile down to 16 say and at the same time exclude > 99 per cent of the UK
community of non-Polish background. It doesn't exclude anyone in the rest of the UK being the
offender, it doesn't even require that person to have Polish ancestry generations before. It is
just a statistical bias, not guaranteed by any means. They may have done a (Jeffrey) Gafoor
trawl via existing data on the UK NDNAD, equally contentious, as far as possibility of arriving
at a false match.
Then amazingly they are allowed 19 point matches / one point mismatch as evidence of guilt rather
than exculpatory evidence. One point mismatch in 20 is a mismatch - proof of innocence - unless
bioological evidence to show differential mutation in the accused. See prosecution of a Colin Waite
in Birmingham recently (defense was unaware ). To do this they rely on spontaneous mutation /
heterogeneity / somatic mosaicism without even exploring whether the individual in question displays
any such tissue mutation. This phenomenon is related to the situation where someone can have 2
different couloured eyes. In these sorts of cases conjecturing a difference between buccal (cheek-
cells ) and sperm cell-line, and no DNA profiling expert to point out the error for the defense.
Mutation possible, yes , but rare even for the loci used in DNA profiling which are chosen precisely
because they have a large amount of variation (due to the more numerous mutations over time ).
Interesting to see if the prosecution does not divulge the trawl background and whether the defence
picks up on the pre-selection/ false matching effect . Perhaps they have matching cell-phone cell
idents coincident with some of the rape locations or other strong corroboration. DNA profile 'match'
on its own is just not sufficient with this sort of trawling.
[ Any of the jury pool involved with the trawl would be aware of pre-selection by Polish name ]
What they aren't telling you about DNA profiles and what Special Branch and Parliament don't want
you to know. http://www.nutteing2.freeservers.com/dnapr.htm or nutteingd in a search engine
e mail [email protected] (just one dot)
--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/allnews/content_objectid=13814385_method=full_siteid=50143_headline=-
RAPE-CASE-JURY-PICKED-name_page.html or http://tinyurl.com/22sdr
"Judge Mr Justice Owen told the group any of them involved in a mass DNA screening by police in the
previous two-and-a-half years could not sit on the jury. "
Is this because the prosecution want to not reveal the mechanism. ? Only 3,000 swabs were taken from
people in a catchment area otherwise at least 4 counties, let alone Birmingham, not the usual area
of a city or a village only. It was never revealed, the pre-selection criterion for only 3,000.
This is my usenet post of 23 Oct 2002
http://groups.google.co.uk/groups?selm=1622f08.0210230932.46f1be17%40posting.google.com&output=gpla-
in "The only information (as released to the media) the police have sofar is he is white , aged 30
to 50 and may live in London, Surrey, Kent or Berkshire. But they do have the suspect's DNA profile.
So how come they are only swabbing 3000 targets to find a match. Buried in these DNA profiles is an
indication of the person's ethnic background. I know from my own DNA profile just concerning the
alleles (numbers) on just 2 of the 10 loci (markers) ie D18S51 and D16S51 I or anyone else would
know I was 20 times more likely to be white than black (true). With the computer and data systems
available to the police I am sure there are combinations that would similarly give a greater
likelihood of being say Greek or Polish or Zambian origin or whatever. From that construct a list of
surnames of that origin. Especially if this rapist's profile has thrown up a rare locus/allele
combination. "
As it transpired the relevant ancestry seems to have been Polish, I know he is of German origin, but
the surname and first name ,hence police interest, is Polish .
[ Iwould posit that the DNA profile of the rapist contained at least one D8S1179 allele 16 and
D2S1338 allele 17, maybe others less marked differentially but cumulatively more common in
Poland than general UK population. ] It is a lot easier to find a matches if preselected from
20 numbers in a DNA profile down to 16 say and at the same time exclude > 99 per cent of the UK
community of non-Polish background. It doesn't exclude anyone in the rest of the UK being the
offender, it doesn't even require that person to have Polish ancestry generations before. It is
just a statistical bias, not guaranteed by any means. They may have done a (Jeffrey) Gafoor
trawl via existing data on the UK NDNAD, equally contentious, as far as possibility of arriving
at a false match.
Then amazingly they are allowed 19 point matches / one point mismatch as evidence of guilt rather
than exculpatory evidence. One point mismatch in 20 is a mismatch - proof of innocence - unless
bioological evidence to show differential mutation in the accused. See prosecution of a Colin Waite
in Birmingham recently (defense was unaware ). To do this they rely on spontaneous mutation /
heterogeneity / somatic mosaicism without even exploring whether the individual in question displays
any such tissue mutation. This phenomenon is related to the situation where someone can have 2
different couloured eyes. In these sorts of cases conjecturing a difference between buccal (cheek-
cells ) and sperm cell-line, and no DNA profiling expert to point out the error for the defense.
Mutation possible, yes , but rare even for the loci used in DNA profiling which are chosen precisely
because they have a large amount of variation (due to the more numerous mutations over time ).
Interesting to see if the prosecution does not divulge the trawl background and whether the defence
picks up on the pre-selection/ false matching effect . Perhaps they have matching cell-phone cell
idents coincident with some of the rape locations or other strong corroboration. DNA profile 'match'
on its own is just not sufficient with this sort of trawling.
[ Any of the jury pool involved with the trawl would be aware of pre-selection by Polish name ]
What they aren't telling you about DNA profiles and what Special Branch and Parliament don't want
you to know. http://www.nutteing2.freeservers.com/dnapr.htm or nutteingd in a search engine
e mail [email protected] (just one dot)
--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG