Under questioning from Neill-Fraser’s lawyer Tom Percy QC yesterday, a witness for the defence Maxwell Jones, a forensic expert from Victoria Police, said he believed the DNA was transferred there directly.

Today, under cross-examination from prosecutor Daryl Coates, Mr Jones said he could not rule out the possibility the DNA got onto the boat indirectly.

Coates: You said yesterday that if you’d known nothing of the case that it’s likely that it would be a direct transfer. However, you know Ms Vass claims she’s never been on the boat. But you don’t rule out the possibility of a direct transfer? Jones: I can’t entirely rule that possibility out but there would need to be specific circumstances for that to occur. There is a possibility of someone transferring it onto the deck. You can’t rule it out.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-10-31/tas-tuesday-hearing-of-neill-fraser-conviction-appeal/9102198

Considering how many people have been done by DNA proving they were at the scene of the crime how can everyone by so happy to consider the idea of secondary transferrance?

Comments? Science? Gut feelings?

sarahs mum said:

Under questioning from Neill-Fraser’s lawyer Tom Percy QC yesterday, a witness for the defence Maxwell Jones, a forensic expert from Victoria Police, said he believed the DNA was transferred there directly.

Today, under cross-examination from prosecutor Daryl Coates, Mr Jones said he could not rule out the possibility the DNA got onto the boat indirectly.

Coates: You said yesterday that if you’d known nothing of the case that it’s likely that it would be a direct transfer. However, you know Ms Vass claims she’s never been on the boat. But you don’t rule out the possibility of a direct transfer? Jones: I can’t entirely rule that possibility out but there would need to be specific circumstances for that to occur. There is a possibility of someone transferring it onto the deck. You can’t rule it out.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-10-31/tas-tuesday-hearing-of-neill-fraser-conviction-appeal/9102198

Considering how many people have been done by DNA proving they were at the scene of the crime how can everyone by so happy to consider the idea of secondary transferrance?

Comments? Science? Gut feelings?

I suppose it depends on what sample the DNA was retrieved from perhaps, I was thinking hair was a likely culprit but looking it up it has to have the root attached. Walking blood onto the deck ?

Cymek said:

sarahs mum said:

Under questioning from Neill-Fraser’s lawyer Tom Percy QC yesterday, a witness for the defence Maxwell Jones, a forensic expert from Victoria Police, said he believed the DNA was transferred there directly.

Today, under cross-examination from prosecutor Daryl Coates, Mr Jones said he could not rule out the possibility the DNA got onto the boat indirectly.

Coates: You said yesterday that if you’d known nothing of the case that it’s likely that it would be a direct transfer. However, you know Ms Vass claims she’s never been on the boat. But you don’t rule out the possibility of a direct transfer? Jones: I can’t entirely rule that possibility out but there would need to be specific circumstances for that to occur. There is a possibility of someone transferring it onto the deck. You can’t rule it out.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-10-31/tas-tuesday-hearing-of-neill-fraser-conviction-appeal/9102198

Considering how many people have been done by DNA proving they were at the scene of the crime how can everyone by so happy to consider the idea of secondary transferrance?

Comments? Science? Gut feelings?

I suppose it depends on what sample the DNA was retrieved from perhaps, I was thinking hair was a likely culprit but looking it up it has to have the root attached. Walking blood onto the deck ?

“Meaghan Vass, a 15-year-old homeless woman whose DNA was found as a small, dark stain on the deck of the yacht “

https://www.mamamia.com.au/sunday-night-sue-neill-fraser-investigation/

Mr Jones said such cases of “secondary transfer” did occur, but that it would take a rare set of circumstances in Ms Vass’ case, due to the “larger amount” of “non-degraded” DNA material found.

“I can’t entirely rule that possibility out … it would require a specific set of circumstances for that transfer to occur and (still) provide such a good DNA sample,” Mr Jones said.

He said the DNA sample associated with Ms Vass, taken from the yacht’s walkway, was “typical of what you’d find in a primary deposit of material” – that is, someone directly leaving DNA behind.

However, he conceded that in “ideal conditions” it was possible someone’s blood or spittle could be transferred to the scene on another person’s shoes.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/susan-neillfraser-murder-appeal-dna-could-have-been-transferred/news-story/ea2088f427eaeda1c9f624838c37cb2f

sarahs mum said:

Cymek said:

sarahs mum said:

Under questioning from Neill-Fraser’s lawyer Tom Percy QC yesterday, a witness for the defence Maxwell Jones, a forensic expert from Victoria Police, said he believed the DNA was transferred there directly.

Today, under cross-examination from prosecutor Daryl Coates, Mr Jones said he could not rule out the possibility the DNA got onto the boat indirectly.

Coates: You said yesterday that if you’d known nothing of the case that it’s likely that it would be a direct transfer. However, you know Ms Vass claims she’s never been on the boat. But you don’t rule out the possibility of a direct transfer? Jones: I can’t entirely rule that possibility out but there would need to be specific circumstances for that to occur. There is a possibility of someone transferring it onto the deck. You can’t rule it out.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-10-31/tas-tuesday-hearing-of-neill-fraser-conviction-appeal/9102198

Considering how many people have been done by DNA proving they were at the scene of the crime how can everyone by so happy to consider the idea of secondary transferrance?

Comments? Science? Gut feelings?

I suppose it depends on what sample the DNA was retrieved from perhaps, I was thinking hair was a likely culprit but looking it up it has to have the root attached. Walking blood onto the deck ?

“Meaghan Vass, a 15-year-old homeless woman whose DNA was found as a small, dark stain on the deck of the yacht “

https://www.mamamia.com.au/sunday-night-sue-neill-fraser-investigation/

That would be hard to indirectly transfer, maybe someone could step in blood and walk it onto the deck but it would have to be pretty close I imagine.

sarahs mum said:

Cymek said:

sarahs mum said:

Under questioning from Neill-Fraser’s lawyer Tom Percy QC yesterday, a witness for the defence Maxwell Jones, a forensic expert from Victoria Police, said he believed the DNA was transferred there directly.

Today, under cross-examination from prosecutor Daryl Coates, Mr Jones said he could not rule out the possibility the DNA got onto the boat indirectly.

Coates: You said yesterday that if you’d known nothing of the case that it’s likely that it would be a direct transfer. However, you know Ms Vass claims she’s never been on the boat. But you don’t rule out the possibility of a direct transfer? Jones: I can’t entirely rule that possibility out but there would need to be specific circumstances for that to occur. There is a possibility of someone transferring it onto the deck. You can’t rule it out.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-10-31/tas-tuesday-hearing-of-neill-fraser-conviction-appeal/9102198

Considering how many people have been done by DNA proving they were at the scene of the crime how can everyone by so happy to consider the idea of secondary transferrance?

Comments? Science? Gut feelings?

I suppose it depends on what sample the DNA was retrieved from perhaps, I was thinking hair was a likely culprit but looking it up it has to have the root attached. Walking blood onto the deck ?

“Meaghan Vass, a 15-year-old homeless woman whose DNA was found as a small, dark stain on the deck of the yacht “

https://www.mamamia.com.au/sunday-night-sue-neill-fraser-investigation/

That would be hard to indirectly transfer, maybe someone could step in blood and walk it onto the deck but it would have to be pretty close I imagine.

Perhaps as it’s “just some homeless women” they are grasping at straws to make out the person is innocent when evidence points to them not being so

Cymek said:

sarahs mum said:

Cymek said:

I suppose it depends on what sample the DNA was retrieved from perhaps, I was thinking hair was a likely culprit but looking it up it has to have the root attached. Walking blood onto the deck ?

“Meaghan Vass, a 15-year-old homeless woman whose DNA was found as a small, dark stain on the deck of the yacht “

https://www.mamamia.com.au/sunday-night-sue-neill-fraser-investigation/

That would be hard to indirectly transfer, maybe someone could step in blood and walk it onto the deck but it would have to be pretty close I imagine.

The boat was moored out into the Derwent in one of the cheaper moorings.

(There was a positive with Luminol to Sue and Bob’s dinghy. ( Bob was also hospitalised a couple of week’s before disappearance..they pulled into Eden where he was admitted for a nose that wouldn’t stop bleeding. An ongoing problem of his. I am led to believe that fishing residues could also set off luminol.) (Luminol was also one of the dodgy bits in the Chamberlain case.)

Cymek said:

Perhaps as it’s “just some homeless women” they are grasping at straws to make out the person is innocent when evidence points to them not being so

Before we start on Sue’s lies..The story begins when..

Sue has a phone call from someone called Richard King. He rings to tell Sue that Bob’s daughter, Claire, (previous marriage) was worried that something awful has happened to Bob on the boat.

I am led to believe Claire and Meaghan knew each other.

Claire has never given testimony..because..she’s a nutter.(Paranoid schizophrenic) Claire’s warning is seen as coincidence. I don’t buy it.

Sue says she lied to police initially to protect Claire.

(You see I am aware of Sue’s lies and exaggerations. But this bit..at the very beginning..is where I am hung up..before the lies.)

I’ve got HP’s Recovery Manager on screen when I pressed F8 while booting. Looks dicey though.

I can choose “I need help immediately” (System Recovery) or “I’d like to take precautions” (File Backup Program).

sarahs mum said:

Cymek said:

sarahs mum said:

“Meaghan Vass, a 15-year-old homeless woman whose DNA was found as a small, dark stain on the deck of the yacht “

https://www.mamamia.com.au/sunday-night-sue-neill-fraser-investigation/

That would be hard to indirectly transfer, maybe someone could step in blood and walk it onto the deck but it would have to be pretty close I imagine.

The boat was moored out into the Derwent in one of the cheaper moorings.

(There was a positive with Luminol to Sue and Bob’s dinghy. ( Bob was also hospitalised a couple of week’s before disappearance..they pulled into Eden where he was admitted for a nose that wouldn’t stop bleeding. An ongoing problem of his. I am led to believe that fishing residues could also set off luminol.) (Luminol was also one of the dodgy bits in the Chamberlain case.)

Luminol isn’t dodgy, it reacts with iron in haemoglobin and tells us that blood was once there. what it can’t tell you is what the original source of the blood was. So animal or human blood will show up on a luminol test. Then the spot needs to be tested to determine the source.

sarahs mum said:

Under questioning from Neill-Fraser’s lawyer Tom Percy QC yesterday, a witness for the defence Maxwell Jones, a forensic expert from Victoria Police, said he believed the DNA was transferred there directly.

Today, under cross-examination from prosecutor Daryl Coates, Mr Jones said he could not rule out the possibility the DNA got onto the boat indirectly.

Coates: You said yesterday that if you’d known nothing of the case that it’s likely that it would be a direct transfer. However, you know Ms Vass claims she’s never been on the boat. But you don’t rule out the possibility of a direct transfer? Jones: I can’t entirely rule that possibility out but there would need to be specific circumstances for that to occur. There is a possibility of someone transferring it onto the deck. You can’t rule it out.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-10-31/tas-tuesday-hearing-of-neill-fraser-conviction-appeal/9102198

Considering how many people have been done by DNA proving they were at the scene of the crime how can everyone by so happy to consider the idea of secondary transferrance?

Comments? Science? Gut feelings?

indirect transfers often include far less and a lesser quality (more contaminated) of DNA. People are generally not convicted of crimes based on DNA evidence alone, although it does provide a very stronger marker for conviction.

Arts said:

sarahs mum said:

Under questioning from Neill-Fraser’s lawyer Tom Percy QC yesterday, a witness for the defence Maxwell Jones, a forensic expert from Victoria Police, said he believed the DNA was transferred there directly.

Today, under cross-examination from prosecutor Daryl Coates, Mr Jones said he could not rule out the possibility the DNA got onto the boat indirectly.

Coates: You said yesterday that if you’d known nothing of the case that it’s likely that it would be a direct transfer. However, you know Ms Vass claims she’s never been on the boat. But you don’t rule out the possibility of a direct transfer? Jones: I can’t entirely rule that possibility out but there would need to be specific circumstances for that to occur. There is a possibility of someone transferring it onto the deck. You can’t rule it out.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-10-31/tas-tuesday-hearing-of-neill-fraser-conviction-appeal/9102198

Considering how many people have been done by DNA proving they were at the scene of the crime how can everyone by so happy to consider the idea of secondary transferrance?

Comments? Science? Gut feelings?

indirect transfers often include far less and a lesser quality (more contaminated) of DNA. People are generally not convicted of crimes based on DNA evidence alone, although it does provide a very stronger marker for conviction.

*very strong… or *much stronger

Arts said:

Arts said:

sarahs mum said:

Under questioning from Neill-Fraser’s lawyer Tom Percy QC yesterday, a witness for the defence Maxwell Jones, a forensic expert from Victoria Police, said he believed the DNA was transferred there directly.

Today, under cross-examination from prosecutor Daryl Coates, Mr Jones said he could not rule out the possibility the DNA got onto the boat indirectly.

Coates: You said yesterday that if you’d known nothing of the case that it’s likely that it would be a direct transfer. However, you know Ms Vass claims she’s never been on the boat. But you don’t rule out the possibility of a direct transfer? Jones: I can’t entirely rule that possibility out but there would need to be specific circumstances for that to occur. There is a possibility of someone transferring it onto the deck. You can’t rule it out.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-10-31/tas-tuesday-hearing-of-neill-fraser-conviction-appeal/9102198

Considering how many people have been done by DNA proving they were at the scene of the crime how can everyone by so happy to consider the idea of secondary transferrance?

Comments? Science? Gut feelings?

indirect transfers often include far less and a lesser quality (more contaminated) of DNA. People are generally not convicted of crimes based on DNA evidence alone, although it does provide a very stronger marker for conviction.

*very strong… or *much stronger

Lots of the criminals I come across get done for burglaries because of DNA

Queensland police posted a video of some idiot robbing a house. The owners had installed a camera in the living room, which recorded the whole ordeal.

Cymek said:

Arts said:

Arts said:

indirect transfers often include far less and a lesser quality (more contaminated) of DNA. People are generally not convicted of crimes based on DNA evidence alone, although it does provide a very stronger marker for conviction.

*very strong… or *much stronger

Lots of the criminals I come across get done for burglaries because of DNA

DNA is an aspect.. a very confounding one, but an aspect all the same.

I suspect in the course of the police interview they would have introduced this evidence and included alibi statements etc.

Arts said:

sarahs mum said:

Cymek said:

That would be hard to indirectly transfer, maybe someone could step in blood and walk it onto the deck but it would have to be pretty close I imagine.

The boat was moored out into the Derwent in one of the cheaper moorings.

(There was a positive with Luminol to Sue and Bob’s dinghy. ( Bob was also hospitalised a couple of week’s before disappearance..they pulled into Eden where he was admitted for a nose that wouldn’t stop bleeding. An ongoing problem of his. I am led to believe that fishing residues could also set off luminol.) (Luminol was also one of the dodgy bits in the Chamberlain case.)

Luminol isn’t dodgy, it reacts with iron in haemoglobin and tells us that blood was once there. what it can’t tell you is what the original source of the blood was. So animal or human blood will show up on a luminol test. Then the spot needs to be tested to determine the source.

“Professor Boettcher showed the Crown’s tests for ‘‘foetal haemoglobin’’ were capable of producing so many false positive results that they were effectively useless.

Indeed, a supposed spray of Azaria’s blood in the boot of the Chamberlain’s car was eventually found to be soundproofing compound applied at the time of manufacture.”

http://www.theherald.com.au/story/204737/blood-expert-remembers-azaria-case/

This is the dodgy bit. I’m not saying that Luminol is dodgy..but in this case it ended up being dodgy evidence.

sarahs mum said:

Arts said:

sarahs mum said:

The boat was moored out into the Derwent in one of the cheaper moorings.

(There was a positive with Luminol to Sue and Bob’s dinghy. ( Bob was also hospitalised a couple of week’s before disappearance..they pulled into Eden where he was admitted for a nose that wouldn’t stop bleeding. An ongoing problem of his. I am led to believe that fishing residues could also set off luminol.) (Luminol was also one of the dodgy bits in the Chamberlain case.)

Luminol isn’t dodgy, it reacts with iron in haemoglobin and tells us that blood was once there. what it can’t tell you is what the original source of the blood was. So animal or human blood will show up on a luminol test. Then the spot needs to be tested to determine the source.

“Professor Boettcher showed the Crown’s tests for ‘‘foetal haemoglobin’’ were capable of producing so many false positive results that they were effectively useless.

Indeed, a supposed spray of Azaria’s blood in the boot of the Chamberlain’s car was eventually found to be soundproofing compound applied at the time of manufacture.”

http://www.theherald.com.au/story/204737/blood-expert-remembers-azaria-case/

This is the dodgy bit. I’m not saying that Luminol is dodgy..but in this case it ended up being dodgy evidence.

yes. Forensic analysis is an imperfect system, not unlike a lot of sciences, best practices can be skewed.

> he could not rule out the possibility the DNA got onto the boat indirectly. Comments?

Well, duh.

He can’t rule out the possibility that superintelligent aliens from Riogel 4 put it there either. Nothing can ever be ruled out completely. That’s part of science.

The point is, the onus of proof is on the prosecution. People shouldn’t be imprisoned due to the balance of probabilities.