General fitness, health and nutrition · Public discussion

"Trophy Rapist" = Antoni Imiela ?

Paul Nutteing · 2004-01-15T19:05:14+00:00

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 nutteing2@quickfindit.....com (just one dot) -- Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG

Started by Paul Nutteing · 15 January 2004 · Last activity 26 January 2004 · 11 posts · 1,105 views

← Back to General fitness, health and nutrition

This thread is locked and is currently read-only.

Thread navigation

Jump through the discussion

Go to the original post, the replies on this page, or the latest preserved contribution.

01 / Original post"Trophy Rapist" = Antoni Imiela ?Paul Nutteing · 15 Jan 2004 02 / This pagePosts 1–11Page 1 of 1 · chronological order 03 / Latest replyPost #11Paul Nutteing · 26 Jan 2004

Thread details

What we know about this thread

Original section: General fitness, health and nutrition
Published: 15 January 2004
Last activity: 26 January 2004
Original author: Paul Nutteing
Posts: 11
Discussion status: Public discussion
Total views: 1,105
Views / 30 days: 0

The navigation and discussion metadata provide context. Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Original post
Paul Nutteing
Archived post

15 January 2004, 19:05 UTC #1

From
mirror.co.ukcontent objectid=13814385 method=full siteid=50143 headline=
RAPE-CASE-JURY-PICKED-name_page.html or tinyurl.com22sdr
"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
groups.google.co.ukgroups
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. nutteing2.freeservers.comdnapr.htm or nutteingd in a search engine
e mail [email protected] (just one dot)
--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - mailgate.orgmailgate.org

Report
Mike Lives
Archived post

15 January 2004, 20:04 UTC #2

"Paul Nutteing" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
From

mirror.co.ukcontent objectid=13814385 method=full s iteid=50143_headline=-RAPE-CASE-JURY-PICKED-
name_page.html
Quoted message said:
or tinyurl.com22sdr
"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

groups.google.co.ukgroups
.google.com&output=gplain
Quoted message said:
"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. nutteing2.freeservers.comdnapr.htm or nutteingd in a search engine
e mail [email protected] (just one dot)
So what's your point? I don't get it

Report
Paul Nutteing
Archived post

15 January 2004, 21:05 UTC #3

"Mike Lives" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:

"Paul Nutteing" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
From

mirror.co.ukcontent objectid=13814385 method=full s
Quoted message said:
iteid=50143_headline=-RAPE-CASE-JURY-PICKED-name_page.html
Quoted message said:
or tinyurl.com22sdr
"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

groups.google.co.ukgroups
Quoted message said:
.google.com&output=gplain
Quoted message said:
"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. nutteing2.freeservers.comdnapr.htm or nutteingd in a search engine
e mail [email protected] (just one dot)
So what's your point? I don't get it
The point is in the title, a DNA profile is not proof of identity. Irish Republic jurisprudence will
not allow DNA profile match ' evidence' on its own, see -
online.ieviewer.adp in England since R v Watters appeal
2000/2001 it should also be the case in England but is ignored.
Some in special branch and whoever controls parliament and Fleet Street know there are serious
problems with DNA profiling that they must keep supressed or a major plank of the criminal justice
system collapses.
What they aren't telling you about DNA profiles and what Special Branch and Parliament don't want
you to know. nutteing2.freeservers.comdnapr.htm or nutteingd in a search engine
e mail [email protected] (just one dot)

Report
Nigel Brooks²°°
Archived post

16 January 2004, 00:06 UTC #4

"Mike Lives" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:

"Paul Nutteing" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
From

mirror.co.ukcontent objectid=13814385 method=full s
Quoted message said:
iteid=50143_headline=-RAPE-CASE-JURY-PICKED-name_page.html
Quoted message said:
or tinyurl.com22sdr
"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

groups.google.co.ukgroups
Quoted message said:
.google.com&output=gplain
Quoted message said:
"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. nutteing2.freeservers.comdnapr.htm or nutteingd in a search engine
e mail [email protected] (just one dot)
So what's your point? I don't get it
I think he needs to gat a life.
Whoops - Nevermind, it is his life nutteing3.no-frills.netnutteing3.htm
--
Nigel Brooks

Report
Webmonkey
Archived post

16 January 2004, 02:07 UTC #5

Nigel Brooks²°°³© said:
"Mike Lives" <[email hidden]> wrote in message "]news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
I think he needs to gat a life.
Whoops - Nevermind, it is his life nutteing3.no-frills.netnutteing3.htm
He has gone nuts.

Report
Desporado ©
Archived post

16 January 2004, 03:09 UTC #6

"WebMonkey" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
Nigel Brooks²°°³© said:
"Mike Lives" <[email hidden]> wrote in message "]news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
I think he needs to gat a life.
Whoops - Nevermind, it is his life nutteing3.no-frills.netnutteing3.htm
He has gone nuts.
monkey nuts no doubt eh ?
--
--
Desporado
www.desporado.com
( Are you there ? )

Report
Nona Revers
Archived post

16 January 2004, 23:13 UTC #7

"Paul Nutteing" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...
Quoted message said:
From
mirror.co.ukcontent objectid=13814385 method=full siteid=50143 headline=
RAPE-CASE-JURY-PICKED-name_page.html or tinyurl.com22sdr
"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.
fromk.co.uk/0100news/0200nationalnews/content_objectid=13825170_method=full_siteid=50002_headline=-
Railway-worker--raped-10-year-old--name_page.html part quote They finally made a breakthrough
on November 19, 2002, when officers called at Imiela's address in Appledore and obtained a
sample from him.
This allegedly provided a close match with semen found on the Ashford rape victim.
"The probability of the tissue not belonging to the defendant was in the order of a billion to one,"
Mr Dennis said. "He was told it would take a week or so for the results. He must have known how
close he was to being caught." end quote
How can these dangerous [censored] get away with a "close match" - any mismatch is a mismatch in
total. Watch them yet again declare "spontaneous mutation" to 'explain ' the discrepancy but with no
extended biological testing to confirm this arrant nonsense.
What they aren't telling you about DNA profiles and what Special Branch and Parliament don't want
you to know. nutteing2.freeservers.comdnapr.htm or nutteingd in a search engine
e mail [email protected] (just one dot)

Report
Nona Revers
Archived post

16 January 2004, 23:13 UTC #8

"Nigel Brooks²°°³©" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...
Quoted message said:
"Mike Lives" <[email hidden]> wrote in message "]news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:

"Paul Nutteing" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:

> > 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. nutteing2.freeservers.comdnapr.htm or nutteingd in a search
engine
e mail [email protected] (just one dot)
So what's your point? I don't get it
I think he needs to gat a life.
Whoops - Nevermind, it is his life nutteing3.no-frills.netnutteing3.htm
Yes, if it wasn't for extremely corrupt social workers in Wiltshire then forensic 'scientists' would
have been able to continue their deceipt. Reserve your diagnosis "nutter" for the seriously
psychotic Stella Maria Constant of Salisbury Social Services.
What they aren't telling you about DNA profiles and what Special Branch and Parliament don't want
you to know. nutteing2.freeservers.comdnapr.htm or nutteingd in a search engine
e mail [email protected] (just one dot)

Report
Mike
Archived post

20 January 2004, 14:06 UTC #9

"Paul Nutteing" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
From

mirror.co.ukcontent objectid=13814385 method=full siteid=50143 headline=
RAPE-CASE-JURY-PICKED-name_page.html
Quoted message said:
or tinyurl.com22sdr
"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

groups.google.co.ukgroups
put=gplain
Quoted message said:
"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. nutteing2.freeservers.comdnapr.htm or nutteingd in a search engine
e mail [email protected] (just one dot)
--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - mailgate.orgmailgate.org
Wow !!! DEEP !!
Do you get out much?

Report
Nona Revers
Archived post

21 January 2004, 00:08 UTC #10

"mike" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...
Quoted message said:
"Paul Nutteing" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:

What they aren't telling you about DNA profiles and what Special Branch and Parliament don't
want you to know. nutteing2.freeservers.comdnapr.htm or nutteingd in a search engine
e mail [email protected] (just one dot)
--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - mailgate.orgmailgate.org
Wow !!! DEEP !!
Do you get out much?
It looks as though they may have mobile phone records. If this shows consistent cell usage
coincident with locale and timing of many of the rapes then they have their corroboration as it was
4/5 counties. If just evidence he was on M25 on relevent days then irrelevent. As the rapist was
supposed to be wearing a condom would he not switch off his mobile phone for the same reasoning?
What they aren't telling you about DNA profiles and what Special Branch and Parliament don't want
you to know. nutteing2.freeservers.comdnapr.htm or nutteingd in a search engine
e mail [email protected] (just one dot)

Report
Paul Nutteing
Archived post

26 January 2004, 20:06 UTC #11

"Paul Nutteing" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:

news.scotsman.comlatest.cfm
I've never read such an utter pile of [censored]. How do they let 'experts' like this submit such
'evidence' in court - just 2 bloody bands.
Quote DNA 'Links Railway Worker to Rape Victim' By Simon Baker, PA News A railway worker accused of
carrying out a series of rapes "cannot be excluded" as the source of DNA taken from one alleged
victim, a court heard today. A forensic scientist said results of tests on a sample taken from the
mouth of a 26-year-old were "what I might expect" of a mixture of DNA from the victim and Antoni
Imiela. But Maidstone Crown Court heard that the chance of the DNA coming from someone other than
Imiela, of Appledore, near Ashford, Kent, was just one in
14.<........> She said that the DNA - consisting of just two "bands" - could be found in
Imiela's full genetic profile, and therefore she concluded that he could not be excluded as
the source. End Quote
So a Valeri Tomlinson joins a Faye Southern in my little black book
What they aren't telling you about DNA profiles and what Special Branch and whoever controls
Parliament and Fleet Street don't want you to know. nutteing2.freeservers.comdnapr.htm
or nutteingd in a search engine
e mail [email protected] (just one dot)

Report

Active in the last 60 minutes

Active in this thread

0 users · 0 guests ·0 bots ·0 total

No signed-in users are active right now.

No known search crawlers active right now.

Jump through the discussion

What we know about this thread

Continue through CyclingForums

Active in this thread