|
|
|
|||||||
| Portal | Royal Articles | Royal Calendar | Register | FAQ | Members List | Royal Links | Search | Today's Posts | Mark Forums Read |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
||||
 |
 |
 |
|
||
 |
 |
|
|||
 |
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread | Display Modes |
|
#181
02-14-2008, 08:21 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
How much I remember, some (tens?) of cases when identifications of DNA have been rejected in courts for the different reasons are known. Recently I gave the reference that researches of DNA of 1990th years are not accepting for consideration in courts now. Hence, physical features of anatomy should be taken into consideration now (until new tests of DNA with higher reliability are lead). In this case it can be feet. In other case it can be absence of a trace of impact of the Japanese sabre on a skull (case of Nicholas II). Regards Boris |
|
#182
02-14-2008, 08:28 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Yes. Quote:
I don't have them, but Dr. Melton, who told how it worked, surely knew, and I have no reason not to believe her. Quote:
 ) Dr. Melton's explaination should logically put and end to such speculation. I have always wondered where those who believe in the conspiracy switch theory think the sample came from? Who cut open a member of the Schanzkowska family and removed just the same exact part of intestine AA had removed? The entire idea is preposterous. |
|
#183
02-14-2008, 08:34 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Please, read my post 136 (2-13-2008). Boris |
|
#184
02-14-2008, 08:37 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
"One thing we can do is make the choice to view the world in a healthy way. We can choose to see the world as safe with only moments of danger rather than seeing the world as dangerous with only moments of safety." -- Deepak Chopra
|
|
#185
02-14-2008, 08:41 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
As I have already explained, this makes no difference, since all it takes is one mismatch to exclude her, and she's already got five. Quote:
Here is a statement from the New York Supreme court proving the mtDNA methods used in the AA case ARE valid and admissable in court. This was handed down in 2000 and has never been overturned: From People vs. Klinger: The court finds that the credible evidence adduced at the hearing established that mtDTA analysis and interpretations are generally accepted as reliable in the scientific community and that the procedures followed in this case establish a foundation for admission of such evidence. The evidence has sufficiently established that the analyses and interpretations of mtDNA has gained general acceptance in the community of scientists that work in this field. The existence of contamination and heteroplasmy do not affect the reliability of the scientific procedure and these issues, which are subj ect to cross-examination at the time of trial, do not invalidate the procedures of mtDNA testing. Although both Dr. Budowle and Dr. Melton testified that mtDNA can not be the unique identifier that nuclear DNA can achieve, this conclusion, however, does not invalidate the accuracy of the procedure and whether it is acceptable in the relevant scientific community. This court finds that many of the procedures used in analyzing mtDNA are the same as those used in analyzing nuclear DNA. Further, the statistical methods used by the technician in creating the upper bounds of the confidence interval are basic statistical methods that have been found generally accepted in the relevant scientific community. Moreover, mtDNA procedures have been subject to peer review and Dr. Budowle testified that he knew of no peer review articles that state that the aforesaid process and statistical methods were not scientifically reliable. In addition, Dr. Melton testified that the whole process has been subject to peer review and that she is unaware of any peer review articles in disagreement with the methods used by her lab with respect to analysis, interpretation and use of the statistical formulas. Once again, Dr. Melton said that NO SCIENTIST has ever questioned in writing the accuracy of her results or methods in any of her work, which expressly includes her work EXCLUDING AA as Anastasia. So if the AA mtDNA analysis is so flawed and unreliable, WHY havent any scientists stated so in writing?? "She (Dr. Melton) testified that her lab exclusively performs mtDNA analysis. One high profile analysis that she was involved with was the claim of Anna Anderson that she was the remaining living child of the Romanov family. By the use of mtDNA, it was determined that she was NOT (my emphasis here) the Grand Duchess Anastasia. ... Dr. Melton testified that she is unaware of any peer review articles in disagreement with the method used by her lab with respect to the analysis and interpretation of mtDNA. She testified that there is no process for mtDNA analysis that is not generally accepted as a valid scientific procedure. The whole process has been subject to peer review. Further, the statistical formula for mtDNA is generally accepted by the scientific community. Dr. Melton testified that there were no peer review articles stating that this statistical formula or method was not a reliable interpretation of the mtDNA database. She also testified that the counting method, the confidence interval approach and the likelihood calculation are each equally valid." While mtDNA analysis can not necessarily prove who a single individual may be, (it cannot go beyond 99.9%, which is the probability AA is FS) it CAN prove who they can NOT be......reliably so by excluding them from the possibility of blood relation in the maternal line. There is NO QUESTION that Anna Anderson was NOT Grand Duchess Anastasia Nicholaiovna because her mtDNA was EXCLUDED from relationship thru the maternal line. The fundemantal issue here remains that mtDNA analysis has proved reliably that AA could not have been GD Anastasia. |
|
#186
02-14-2008, 08:42 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
PEOPLE v. KLINGER
713 N.Y.S.2d 823 N.Y.Co.Ct., 2000 Sept. 5, 2000 Judge Brown PEOPLE v. MICHAEL KLINGER and RAYMOND KLINGER QDS:76703137—The following constitutes the opinion, decision and order of the court. *** By previous order of the Honorable Paul E. Kowtna, this court conducted a Frye hearing on June 6, 2000 and June 13, 2000, to determine the admissibility of mitochondrial DNA evidence at the trial of the above-captioned Indictment. At the hearing, the court heard testimony from two witnesses, Bruce Budowle, Ph.D., a Senior Scientist with the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and Terry Melton, PhD., President of Mitotyping Technologies, LLC. The court finds that Dr, Budowle and Dr. Melton were credible witnesses. The court makes the following conclusions of law: The Court of Appeals has held that "[t]he long recognized rule of Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013, is that expert testimony based on scientific principles or procedures is admissible but only after a principle or procedure has 'gained general acceptance' in its specified field". In Frye (supra at 1014) the court stated: "Just when a scientific principle or discovery crosses the line between the experimental and demonstrable stages is difficult to define. Somewhere in this twilight zone the evidential force of the principle must be recognized, and while courts will go a long way in admitting expert testimony deduced from a well-recognized scientific principle or discovery, the thing from which the deduction is made must be sufficiently established to have gained general acceptance in the particular field in which it belongs" (emphasis supplied)." (People v. Wesley, 83 NY2d 417). "This Court has noted that the particular procedure need not be 'unanimously indorsed' by the scientific community but must be 'generally acceptable as reliable' (see People v. Middleton, 54 NY2d 42, 49). Thus the issue here concerns the acceptance by the relevant scientific community of the reliability of DNA evidence." (People v. Wesley, supra at 423). "Once Frye has been satisfied, the question is 'whether the accepted techniques were employed by the experts in this case" (People v. Wesley, supra, citing People v. Middleton, 54 NY2d at 50). The focus moves from the general reliability of the procedures followed to generate the evidence proffered and whether they establish a foundation for the reception of the evidence at trial. The trial court determines, as a preliminary matter of law, whether an adequate foundation for the admissibility of this particular evidence has been established." (People v. Wesley, supra at 429). The first witness was Dr. Bruce Budowle. Dr. Budowle has been employed by the FBI for 17 years and has been a Senior Scientist for the past one and a half to two years. He has a Ph.D. in genetics and a Bachelor's Degree in biology, Dr. Budowle is a member of numerous professional organizations including the American Academy of Forensic Sciences and the International Society of Forensic Genetics. He has published approximately 200-250 articles or materials relating to DNA analysis, nine of those articles regarding mitochondrial DNA (hereinafter "mtDNA"), The majority of these articles were subject to peer review. Dr. Budowle has presented his research and findings to the International Symposium of Human Identification on nine separate occasions. He explained that a symposium is a way to bring the scientific community together so theycan exchange ideas. He also serves on numerous journal and editorial boards both in this country and abroad. Dr. Budowle has received numerous honors and awards including the Forensic Scientist of the Year Award. He teaches a course on mtDNA typing for the FBI and for Forensic Institute, which is for national and international students. Dr. Budowle has been qualified on numerous occasions as an expert witness in molecular biology, genetics, population genetics, statistics and forensic science in state, local and federal courts. He stated that he has testified in more than half of the states in this country. Dr, Budowle has also been qualified as an expert on mtDNA in New York, Louisiana, Pennsylvania, Maryland and California. As early as 1989, Dr. Budowle co-wrote a chapter of a book describing mtDNA as a possible genetic tool. In October of 1993, he co-wrote one of the first guidelines for the use of mtDNA sequencing in forensic science. In 1995, he co-wrote a peer review journal describing the procedure that was developed at the FBI for the extraction, amplification and sequencing of mtDNA from human hair shafts, Also, in 1995, a peer review article was co-written by him on the validation of the aforesaid procedures for their application to case work. An article was also co-written by Dr. Budowle, which was published in 1997, that described a phenomenon observed in mtDNA called heteroplasmy. Dr. Budowle also co-wrote a peer review article for publication where a mtDNA study was done with crab lice. He determined that this study was a valuable way of looking at the DNA environment to determine whether its analysis produces a reliable result. In 1999, he co-wrote a peer review journal article describing some of the population data from a portion of the data bases that demonstrates, by inference, the rarity of the mtDNA type among unrelated individuals. Finally, Dr. Budowle is on the DNA Commission of the International Society for Forensic Genetics. He was one of 13 members of the DNA Commission who published an editorial which contained guidelines for typing mtDNA. *** MtDNA is much heartier than nuclear DNA. For example, old bones and teeth that have been exposed to the environment may still have sufficient quantity for mtDNA typing where nuclear DNA typing would fail to give a result, There are, however, differences between the two types of DNA. First, in nuclear DNA, you inherit half from your mother and half from your father. In mtDNA, you inherit all of it from your mother. Second, instead of being billions of letters long, the mtDNA strand is 16,569 letters long. Further, mtDNA is circular rather than linear. Dr. Budowle opined that the circular strands may actually protect the mtDNA from being degraded. *** the counting method is used to predict how common a particular profile is in mtDNA. Next, the technician can go further by calculating a confidence level based upon a statistical formula established early in the twentieth century. The lab, in essence, would calculate a confidence interval around the estimated frequency based on the size of the database. This formula is based upon bell-shaped distribution theories that have been in existence since the mid-eighteenth century. A confidence level, based upon a statistical analysis, creates an upper bound to the benefit of the accused, and then provides that they have confidence that the frequency is no higher than this amount, Dr. Budowle is not aware of any peer review article that disagrees with this method of calculation. MtDNA research began at the FBI in 1992 and testing commenced in 1996. Numerous procedures and protocols were developed that were subject to peer review. Moreover, validation studies for mtDNA have been published and subject to peer review. Apparently, there have been no peer review articles that disagree with the FBI validation ... |
|
#187
02-14-2008, 08:43 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Dr. Terry Melton has been working with mtDNA since 1991. She has a
Ph.D. from Penn State University in genetics. She has performed hundreds of DNA analyses and thousands of PCR amplifications. She testified that her lab exclusively performs mtDNA analysis. One high profile analysis that she was involved with was the claim of Anna Anderson that she was the remaining living child of the Romanov family. By the use of mtDNA, it was determined that she was not the Grand Duchess Anastasia. The Court cited the AA case here as support for Dr. Melton's credentials as an expert in mtDNA analysis. Please note that there is no reference to any question of the accuracy of the results of the test. In fact, the accuracy of the AA test is overtly IMPLIED because the Court cites it as part of the basis for believing her expertise in mtDNA work and IN FACT RELIES ON THIS CASE to demonstrate her expertise. In plain English, what this says is that NO SCIENTISTS have published ANYTHING to date which has questioned the accuracy of her work, INCLUDING the mtDNA analysis of AA, excluding her as GD Anastasia. I have seen lots of claims made here of the "innacuracy" of the AA mtDNA testing, but for some reason, NO ONE can actually cite any published scientific reference to back up their claims. Dr. Melton testified that, in her opinion, the underlying principles of mtDNA, the principles of mtDNA analysis and the statistical methods as applied to mtDNA are generally accepted as reliable in the scientific community. mtDNA analysis IS regarded as reliable and accepted by the scientific community. ------------------- Anastasia, Nyet. Authors: Glausiusz, Josie Source: Discover; Jan1995, Vol. 16 Issue 1, p99, 1/2p, 2bw Document Type: Article Subject Terms: ANDERSON, Anna IMPOSTORS & imposture ANASTASIA Nikolaevna, Grand Duchess, daughter of Nicholas II, Emperor of Russia NICHOLAS II, Emperor of Russia, 1868-1918 Abstract: Reveals that Anna Anderson, the woman who claimed to be Grand Duchess Anastasia, daughter of Russian Czar Nicholas II and Empress Alexandra who were executed in 1918, was a fraud. Medical evidence refuting the woman's claim; True identity of the impostor. ISSN: 0274-7529 Persistent link to this record: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.as...ite=srck5-live ANASTASIA, NYET Section: GENETICS - 1994 IN OCTOBER RESEARCHERS at the British Forensic Science Service announced that by reading the entrails of a woman dead for the past ten years they had solved one of the century's most enduring mysteries. Not only, they said, was Anna Anderson not the Grand Duchess Anastasia--daughter of Czar Nicholas II and his wife, Alexandra, who were executed in 1918--she was likely to have been one Franziska Schanzkowska, a German-Polish factory worker who had disappeared in 1920. It was also in 1920, in Berlin, that the woman called Anna Anderson first appeared, in a mental hospital; she'd been placed there after being dragged from a canal, an unsuccessful suicide. She made her claim to be Anastasia two years later, and until her death in the United States in 1984, she never wavered. Not until this past year, though, could her claim be unequivocally repudiated. Peter Gill and his colleagues extracted DNA from a section of Anderson's intestine that had been preserved at a Charlottesville, Virginia, hospital after she had undergone surgery there in 1979. They found her chromosomal [nuclear] DNA to be lacking in pivotal sequences identified last year in DNA extracted from the bones of the czar and czarina. The researchers also looked at Anderson's mitochondrial DNA--genetic material passed unchanged from mother to child--and compared its sequences with those of a maternally descended great-nephew of Schanzkowska's. They were identical. By Josie Glausiusz ----------------- From Robert K. Massie's book "The Romanovs: The Final Chapter", here is the explaination of Penny Jenkins, employee of Martha Jefferson hospital, when asked if the sample could have been switched: "We have two separate backups. In 1979 when Dr. Shrum did surgery on Mrs. Manahan, we took slides of the tissue, in addition to preserving in paraffin the larger blocks of the excised tissue. Taking slides when doing surgery is routine, you take it, you look at it, and say, there is cancer, or it's not cancer, or it's an infection or whatever. We preserve these slides in one place and the paraffin wax in a totally different place. "Furthermore, when we moved the tissue from storage back to the hospital in early 1993, Dr, Thomas Dudley, the assistant pathologist, cut some new slides from one of the blocks. We compared these new slides cut in 1993 with those slides cut in 1979 and they were identical. If someone had swapped them in storage during the last couple of years, they would not have matched. And the chance that anybody was able to get to both locations and switch both slides without access to specimen numbers is impossible." ----------------------------- Here is the Gill paper from 1995, so called "AA paper". Gill P, Kimpton C, Aliston-Greiner R, Sullivan K, Stoneking M, Melton T, Nott J, Barritt S, Roby R, Holland M, et al. Establishing the identity of Anna Anderson Manahan. Nature Genetics. 1995 Jan;9(1):9-10. http://img156.exs.cx/img156/9286/aaarticle4pv.jpg One year later, Nature Genetics declared the case closed. (AA = FS end of story) |
|
#188
02-14-2008, 08:52 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
It's not only mtDNA. How many people do you think there were who fit the description: a girl who looked like Anna Anderson, same age, same hair/eye color, who disappeared in a same time when AA appeared in the same region!! You have to take that into account by Bayesian inference (the court of law requires forensic scientists to use Bayesian). Here is a calculation. Come to think of it, I will also post the population genetics paper cited in this calculation. Question: Is the random match probability of AA’s DNA really 1/300? Some AA proponents assert that AA’s specific mtDNA type is very common type, therefore a match between AA and FS is just by accident. However, this argument is fundamentally flawed. If so, why don’t they just show the data of someone who has same mtDNA? There are more than dozens populaiton genetics papers that you can check very easily. They can’t, because their claim is not true. Before showing the evidence, let's to point out that the probability 1/300 reported in Peter Gill’s study in 1995 was outdated. Gill “guessed” the number from statistical average because he didn’t find AA’s mtDNA type in database available in 1995. Therefore, any unknown mtDNA in 1995 was estimated as “1/300” temporally, even if its actual probability is 1/5000 or 1/100,000 (!). To get more accurate estimate, I checked all mtDNA (HVI) database available to me that contained 8,902 sequences of European Caucasian including US Caucasian, British, French, German, Italian, Spanish, Polish, Russian, Hungarian, Austrian, Dutch, Norwegian, Swedish, Ashkenazic Jewish, Belgian, Icelandic, Austrian, Bulgarian, Portuguese and so on. I also checked African and Asian population just in case. Most convenient sources are major human genetics journals such as Annals of Human Genetics and American Journal of Human Genetics (especially Annals of Human Genetics vol 67 (2003), p281 was helpful). Also computerized database were used, such as NCBI GenBank, European Molecular Biology Laboratory (EMBL), and US Department of Justice FBI CODIS database. The reason why I investigated different regions separately was to see “population structure” due to ethnic subgroup, but prevalence of Tara clan was 10 +/- 2% in all countries in Europe, which indicates there is no siginificant structure (also see Science Vol 254 p1735). I’ll discuss this issue in Question 3. TABLE 4 (Some examples of European mtDNA (HVI) studies) --------------------------------------------------------------------- French (total = 109) 9 person has the most common type: CRS (no mutation) Almost all other 93 person has a unique mtDNA (does not share mtDNA each other). No one has AA’s mtDNA (16126C, 16266T, 16294T, 16304C) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Autstrian (total = 101) 9 person has the most common type: CRS (no mutation) Almost all other 80 person has a unique mtDNA (does not share mtDNA each other). No one has AA’s mtDNA ---------------------------------------------------------------------- British (total = 100) 12 person has the most common type: CRS (no mutation) No one has AA’s mtDNA ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Russians and Ukrainians (total = 201) 22 person has the most common type: CRS (no mutation) No one has AA’s mtDNA ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Polish (total = 436) 67 person has the most common type: CRS (no mutation) No one has AA’s mtDNA ----------------------------------------------------------------------- US Caucasians total = 323 61 person has the most common type: CRS (no mutation) No one has AA’s mtDNA In all regions, by far the most common mtDNA haplotype (HVI) is CRS (Cambridge Reference sequence). About 10% of population in any country (except US) has this sequence (almost same prevalence as AB blood type), i.e. about 65 million European has an exactly same mtDNA sequence (at HVI). There is no known reason why this specific type is so prevalent. It seems just stochastic genetic drift event. A friend of mine jokes this mtDNA type is related to “beauty phenotype” expressed in their daughters, but I don’t think it’s true. (By the way, this CRS sequence itself from a British woman whose identity kept secret for some reason since 1981. A rumor goes that it was a researcher’s wife’s mtDNA.) However, this CRS mtDNA is an exception. Almost all other mtDNA type is rare, usually less than 1%. For example, I checked Tsarina’s mtDNA type 16111T/16357C. There was 0 in database of 8902 caucasians. Tsar’s mtDNA was also rare, 0 out of 8902. And Anna Anderson’s mtDNA had 1 in 8902 (1 found in Iceland study). therefore the random match probability is 1/8902 = 0.01%: about 30 times rarer than the original Peter Gill’s estimate (1/300). So, can I conclude from this DNA evidence alone? Not so fast. I think many people confuse DNA’s random match probability, likelihood ratio, with Posterior Odds. To discuss if AA is FS, we have to discuss posterior odds. Bayesian inference is the logical/mathematical framework to interpret the combined probability of independent event. Forensic science in both US and UK are always interepreted in a logical sturucture of Bayesian inference. In the court, forensic exprert are instructed by judge to testify only regarding to “DNA random match probability” or “likelihood ratio”, but what really concern jury is the posterior odds. Here I try to be a jury rather than a DNA expert. O (posterior) = O (prior) * DNA likelihood ratio Roughly speaking, if two person’s sex, age, physical feature including height, hair color, face feature, prior odds are 1:10. Considering FS has been missing at almost exactly same time at same geological area as AA appeared, even conservative odds brings this to 1:100. DNA random probability is a simply inverse of likelihood ratio in this case, so my calculation shows: O (posterior) = 1/100 x 1/9000 = 1/900,000 (that is to say, probability that AA is FS is 99.9999%) As “reasonable doubt” is generally considered O(posterior)(threshold) =1/10,000, it is reasonable to accept hypothesis that “AA is FS”. Therefore, with overwhelming evidential support and lack of alternative scenario, I support the hypothesis that AA= FS. Anna Anderson was FS = 99.9999% Anna Anderson was Anastasia = 0.00000000 (add 80 of zero here)0001% * FS was murdered by Grossmann = 0.00001% FS was murdered by other murderers = 0.00002% FS was killed by accident = 0.00002% FS was living peacefully under other pseudonym = 0.00004% FS was kidnapped by foreign intelligence agency such as KGB = 0.00001% FS didn’t exist from beginning, she was a fiction by her family= 0.000001% |
|
#189
02-14-2008, 09:00 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
This is a lot of information.
Thanks Boris and Anna for providing your expertise on this matter it is much appreciated. Well since this is a lot of material to digest, I will have myself a supper and come back and look at this later. Thanks again for your input.
__________________
"One thing we can do is make the choice to view the world in a healthy way. We can choose to see the world as safe with only moments of danger rather than seeing the world as dangerous with only moments of safety." -- Deepak Chopra
|
|
#190
02-14-2008, 09:02 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Wait a sec, I already do!  |
|
#191
02-14-2008, 09:05 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Anna was Franziska",
Once again: I do not see any sense to discuss an nonsence on a theme «Anna was Franziska». Please, find (at least) one reference that FS had congenital HV (or simple heavy HV, at least) if you wish to continue discussion on this theme. I go to sleep now. Sorry Boris |
|
#192
02-14-2008, 09:06 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Anna,
To protect the integrity of our site, can you quote the sources you use? People vs. Klinger looks like the results of a court case and should be in the public domain but can you identifiy Dave K and make sure its OK to post his findings here? Thanks.
__________________
"One thing we can do is make the choice to view the world in a healthy way. We can choose to see the world as safe with only moments of danger rather than seeing the world as dangerous with only moments of safety." -- Deepak Chopra
|
|
#193
02-14-2008, 09:28 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
