One thing i find odd part two.

[Annie]

Annie said:

"Because the DNA ended all that speculation, IF you TRULY believe the DNA!

Think of it as a court case for a crime. Bill is accused of a murder, but he claims Joe did it. Amy said she saw Joe at the house that night. The footprints, smeared in mud, seem more Joe's size. Bill's mother claimed he was at her house all night the night of the murder. But when DNA testing is done on evidence found on the body, Bill is proven to be the killer. Now some may yell, 'what about the footprints?' 'what about what Amy and the mother said?' Well, guess what, DNA is the FINAL answer, and NONE of that matters anymore! We can only presume intelligently that Bill's mother must have lied, Amy was mistaken, and that the smeared footprints were not accurately measured. When the DNA comes in, the judge doesn't want to hear all the piddly crap anymore, because it's OVER and the PROOF is there!"

Unfortunately DNA is not so cut and dried.  It might work if we thought the victim was Bill, but the DNA proved that the victim was Joe.  It CAN'T prove that the murderer was Bill, though it might shoot a hole in his alibi if he claimed he wasn't there and his DNA turned up on the body or the weapon.  Proof of who the actual murderer was would depend on a variety of other evidence including motive, opportunity and method.

Consider an alleged rape case - the DNA might prove that Mr X had sex with Miss Y (and if he denied the act that would be pretty damning) but it couldn't prove lack of consent, that would depend on other evidence and the considered veracity of the witnesses.

There have been several cases in the UK where DNA evidence has been conspicuously absent but its absence has not been enough to have the accused declared not guilty.

In questions of identity DNA appears to be pretty conclusive but it isn't the be all and end all.  I seem to recall that in the 19th century a scientific method of proving identity based on accurate measurements of various features was considered infallible and widely used.  It was totally discredited when a man was absolutely identified using the method but the man he was identified as turned out to be in prison at the time!  If I can recall the case & method I'll put it on the board sometime.

Phil Tomaselli 

I would like to see Helen and Belochka's take on this, I trust their DNA expertise much more.

[skirt]

So let me get this straight.
Dont ask for facts or muse out loud, dont ever question 'proof'..
certainly dont ask questions....
dont have a mind of your own....
because it all defies common logic
not to mention you get cruixified on this board if you ever question these 'authorities'/historians etc
We dont all need to promote our cause, or spew our credentials to have a valid opinion do we?
its not all piddly crap to everyone else.

[Bev]

Phil's "courtcase" is a somewhat tortured strawman argument.  Who is to say that Bill's mother isn't lying, that Amy isn't mistaken and the footprints aren't Bill's?  This is why the case is presented to a jury, so that the evidence presented is judged to be sufficient to prove beyond doubt that the state has indeed prosecuted the right man.  The prosecution may well prove that Bill's mother is lying, etc..

DNA is subjected to different proof - scientific proof.  It must be subjected to scientific standards of experimentation, repetition, falsability and the results quantitatively estimated (the probability that the results are incorrect)   and to compare dna testing with phrenology, a pseudo science is false.  Phrenology has never been subjected to rigorous scientific method, but is instead a collection os statistics which are subjective in interpretation.  

[lexi4]

Phil's "courtcase" is a somewhat tortured strawman argument.  Who is to say that Bill's mother isn't lying, that Amy isn't mistaken and the footprints aren't Bill's?  This is why the case is presented to a jury, so that the evidence presented is judged to be sufficient to prove beyond doubt that the state has indeed prosecuted the right man.  The prosecution may well prove that Bill's mother is lying, etc..

DNA is subjected to different proof - scientific proof.  It must be subjected to scientific standards of experimentation, repetition, falsability and the results quantitatively estimated (the probability that the results are incorrect)   and to compare dna testing with phrenology, a pseudo science is false.  Phrenology has never been subjected to rigorous scientific method, but is instead a collection os statistics which are subjective in interpretation.  

Bev,
I have a question and I admit my knowledge of DNA is rather limited.
There have been cases in which DNA was used to obtain convictions in felony cases such as murder only to find out later, the DNA was wrong. Now that has been very limited, but I would be interested in knowing how that can happen.
Any ideas?
Thanks,
Lexi

[Annie]

So let me get this straight.
Dont ask for facts or muse out loud, dont ever question 'proof'..
certainly dont ask questions....
dont have a mind of your own....
because it all defies common logic
not to mention you get cruixified on this board if you ever question these 'authorities'/historians etc
We dont all need to promote our cause, or spew our credentials to have a valid opinion do we?
its not all piddly crap to everyone else.

If you cannot come up with a valid reason why the DNA tests prove AA was not related to Alexandra's family, and why she was 99.9% related to the Schanskowskas, none of the shoe stories or such things matter anymore, unless you just want to play around for your own entertainment. It is IMO rather embarrassing to say someone would have a 'mind of their own' to defy proven scientific evidence, that's like saying the world is still flat or that the south won the US Civil War.It is no longer an OPINION when it can and has been PROVEN WRONG!

[Annie]

There have been cases in which DNA was used to obtain convictions in felony cases such as murder only to find out later, the DNA was wrong. Now that has been very limited, but I would be interested in knowing how that can happen.
Any ideas?
Thanks,
Lexi

I have never heard of that, but I have heard of cases where people spent many years in jail convicted on 'shoe' and 'hearsay' and 'eyewitness account' evidence but were later proven innocent by DNA, and allowed to go free after that. And no judge was saying 'what about those shoes?' 'what about Mary Sue swearing to seeing him at the scene of the crime in her testimony?' Once the DNA comes in everything else is out the window, aka 'piddly crap.'

[lexi4]

So let me get this straight.
Dont ask for facts or muse out loud, dont ever question 'proof'..
certainly dont ask questions....
dont have a mind of your own....
because it all defies common logic
not to mention you get cruixified on this board if you ever question these 'authorities'/historians etc
We dont all need to promote our cause, or spew our credentials to have a valid opinion do we?
its not all piddly crap to everyone else.

If you cannot come up with a valid reason why the DNA tests prove AA was not related to Alexandra's family, and why she was 99.9% related to the Schanskowskas, none of the shoe stories or such things matter anymore, unless you just want to play around for your own entertainment. It is IMO rather embarrassing to say someone would have a 'mind of their own' to defy proven scientific evidence, that's like saying the world is still flat or that the south won the US Civil War.It is no longer an OPINION when it can and has been PROVEN WRONG!

Annie,
Please, please don't tell me the world is round! Next you will expect me to believe that a man really landed on the moon and that it isn't cheese. That would be more than I could baar.  

[lexi4]

There have been cases in which DNA was used to obtain convictions in felony cases such as murder only to find out later, the DNA was wrong. Now that has been very limited, but I would be interested in knowing how that can happen.
Any ideas?
Thanks,
Lexi

I have never heard of that, but I have heard of cases where people spent many years in jail convicted on 'shoe' and 'hearsay' and 'eyewitness account' evidence but were later proven innocent by DNA, and allowed to go free after that. And no judge was saying 'what about those shoes?' 'what about Mary Sue swearing to seeing him at the scene of the crime in her testimony?' Once the DNA comes in everything else is out the window, aka 'piddly crap.'

As I said, it is not common. It was a case reported a few years back and I will be darned if I can remember where I read it etc. (The hard drive in my brains suffers from memory overload.)

[Annie]

Annie,
Please, please don't tell me the world is round! Next you will expect me to believe that a man really landed on the moon and that it isn't cheese. That would be more than I could baar. 

Well, take heart, there are conspiracy theories that it was only an act put on in a Hollywood studio to trick the Russians

[lexi4]

Annie,
Please, please don't tell me the world is round! Next you will expect me to believe that a man really landed on the moon and that it isn't cheese. That would be more than I could baar. 

Well, take heart, there are conspiracy theories that it was only an act put on in a Hollywood studio to trick the Russians

Whew! At least you didn't tell me the moon wasn't made of cheese. 

[Tania]

notice...that's why this is so aptly called : A Discussion Thread  
if you will note, there seem to be more than one point being addressed by posters here, and no matter how much one might like to take control of ny of the given points that emerge here, ALL posters are allowed to have their own opinions, period.

people will hold on to the beliefs they wish, and as they have. Annie, or nobody else will change their minds.

But in the case of Bear, she already has very well stated in black and white, what she believes and what she does not believe, so lay off of Bear.

We are delighted Annie, that you have your personal beliefs, and that is fine, but please refrain from continually stirring the pot, and making others feel less than because they don't fall into your line of thinking, or what you think the world at large thinks, or must think.

Logic may play an important part in determining many issues, but what one may think is 100% the case, may not always be so.

Phil has aptly offered evidence of that earlier in his posting here, and I'm sure nobody had seen or offered those points before. So it is good that we have these threads so everyone can feel free, speak, write without fear, or without being harassed endlessely.

This AP Forum speaks very well for a free and democratic open interchange, and I for one am very supportive and happy that it continues to be so.   I believe if it were contrary, you Annie, or i or over 4,000 people globally would be unable to come each day to read, review, ponder, gain educative understandings of issues past, present, future.

So yes, Annie, we hear what you share after every one of a posting of which you are not happy with their viewpoints. By the same token, EVERYONE has the same rights to respond freely, their opinions, period. If you note as well, most posters are free to agree to disagree, and or ignore, but don't harass over and over another poster. It just is not good manners to do so.  

Thanks for your time ! ....and Lexi4, the moon is round, but definately not made of cheese, lol

Tatiana+

[lexi4]

notice...that's why this is so aptly called : A Discussion Thread  
if you will note, there seem to be more than one point being addressed by posters here, and no matter how much one might like to take control of ny of the given points that emerge here, ALL posters are allowed to have their own opinions, period.

people will hold on to the beliefs they wish, and as they have. Annie, or nobody else will change their minds.

But in the case of Bear, she already has very well stated in black and white, what she believes and what she does not believe, so lay off of Bear.

We are delighted Annie, that you have your personal beliefs, and that is fine, but please refrain from continually stirring the pot, and making others feel less than because they don't fall into your line of thinking, or what you think the world at large thinks, or must think.

Logic may play an important part in determining many issues, but what one may think is 100% the case, may not always be so.

Phil has aptly offered evidence of that earlier in his posting here, and I'm sure nobody had seen or offered those points before. So it is good that we have these threads so everyone can feel free, speak, write without fear, or without being harassed endlessely.

This AP Forum speaks very well for a free and democratic open interchange, and I for one am very supportive and happy that it continues to be so.   I believe if it were contrary, you Annie, or i or over 4,000 people globally would be unable to come each day to read, review, ponder, gain educative understandings of issues past, present, future.

So yes, Annie, we hear what you share after every one of a posting of which you are not happy with their viewpoints. By the same token, EVERYONE has the same rights to respond freely, their opinions, period. If you note as well, most posters are free to agree to disagree, and or ignore, but don't harass over and over another poster. It just is not good manners to do so.  

Thanks for your time ! ....and Lexi4, the moon is round, but definately not made of cheese, lol

Tatiana+

Oh Tania, why did you have to tell me that? 

[Annie]

Annie,
Please, please don't tell me the world is round! Next you will expect me to believe that a man really landed on the moon and that it isn't cheese. That would be more than I could baar. 

Well, take heart, there are conspiracy theories that it was only an act put on in a Hollywood studio to trick the Russians

I'm sure there must be a 'moon is made of green cheese' society somewhere!
Whew! At least you didn't tell me the moon wasn't made of cheese. 

I'm sure there must be a "moon is made of green cheese" society somewhere!

And don't forget that advanced alien society that lives on the dark side of the moon!

[Tania]

Which part Lexi, that the moon is round or in regards to being green ?   

Tatiana+

[Bev]

 Lexi,we're comparing apples and oranges.  The standards of proof are different in scientific methodology and court cases.  Court cases aren't decided on one piece of evidence, and the evidence admitted is a result of consensual jurisprudence.  Phil's claiming that dna testing isn't reliable because, like phrenology, it is somehow a subjective interpretation of results and this is not the case - it's like comparing alchemy and chemistry.  Yes, mistakes can be made, which is why results must be repetitive - if one scientist obtains a result, other scientists must be able to repeat the experiment and obtain the same result.    

In testing the dna in this case, (AA as FS and not GDA) the results were the same each time the samples were tested.  Even when two different kinds of samples were tested by three different labs, (hair and tissue) the results were the same.  The testing in this case was repeated multiple times by different labs and lab personnel, which also happened to meet the test of non-bias.  

Yes, lab errors occur all the time, but that is why scientific methodology requires that results be repeatable and quantitatively estimated.   (And if a defendent was convicted because of a false scientific theory, then that is a court error, not a scientific error.  In other words, the judge ruled in error in admitting it as evidence.  I won't get into misconduct and false testimony and other variables that inform a decision to overturn a case. Oh, and let me point out also, that the results sought in scientific methodology and court are two very different things - court cases only decide guilt or non-guilt, they do not even decide innocence.  Nor can a case be presented in court with the expectation that the result will be the same - that's why appeals courts order new trials.)

Phil's argument is an error in logic - just because one theory is proven wrong, it doesn't follow that all theories are wrong or even may be wrong.  It means that the theory of phrenology is wrong and not any other theory.  

(I am not impugning Phil's character, his honesty, or questioning his right to present an argument or opinion.  I am pointing out that Phil's claim is based on an illogical and false argument and he has thus drawn the wrong conclusion.)