DNA and the law

[Elspeth]

Originally Posted by AGRBear

Remember, in my hypotheses I already voiced that the lawyer on team A has convinced me that we cannot know that the sample of intestines were AA's, and, I've asked you and your lawyers on team B to convince me that the sample was AA's. I started with the concern of the chain of custody. You and others have jumped over this problem like it didn't exist. I'd call this a "leap of assumption".

No, I haven't jumped over it. My first point about chain of custody is that it isn't an end in itself, the requirement exists for a reason. That reason is to make sure that the samples are from the source they're alleged to be from.

An unbroken chain of custody of a single sample is one way to make sure that the sample is from the source it's alleged to be from, but it isn't the only way.

Independent confirmation of the identity of the source by analysis of another sample, preferably one which has had no contact with the sample in question, is another way of making sure that the first sample is from the source it's alleged to be from. That's been done in this case, your claim of irrelevance notwithstanding.

My second point about chain of custody is that there appears to be precedent in the courts for evidence to be admitted from old samples for which the chain of custody isn't secure, as long as there's some sort of independent confirmation of their identity, and that hence the "independent confirmation" standard is a perfectly valid one.

As for the "hair in an envelope in a book belonging to person A", thus far this is all I know about it. I don't know your source. I don't know who "person A' is. I don't know if they placed the hair in the book and later found it. Or was this book found on some book shelf in a bookstore? How can I comment without knowing anything about it. Nor do I know about the tests? Who tested the hair? Source, please. And, from the little I'm grasping, it appears the chain of custody might be a problem.

Who tested the hair? Mark Stoneking and Terry Melton. You really didn't know?

Again, I'm coming back to the issue about the chain of custody not being the goal here. The goal is to establish the origin of the sample. Two independent samples gave the same result in an mtDNA test. The hair sample wasn't associated with the hospital and it wasn't tested at the labs that tested the intestine sample, so a simple explanation based on cross-contamination or a one-time sample switch isn't going to cut it.

Both samples were alleged to have been from Anna Anderson, and both gave the same mtDNA result. As I said before, there's a limited number of explanations for this result.

1. Both samples actually were from Anna Anderson (person A).

2. Both samples had been tampered with, in different places and at different times, to switch Anna Anderson's samples to samples from another person (person B - to show that we're talking about just one other person).

3. Both samples - the intestine in the hospital and the hair in the book - were genuinely from another person (person B), despite the labelling as belonging to Anna Anderson, and there had been no tampering.

4. The two samples were from different people (persons B and C) and coincidentally gave the same result in the mtDNA test.

The whole chain-of-custody issue is to address explanation 2. The possibility that one sample was tampered with is quite high. The possibility that two samples, which had been located in different places, collected by different people, and analysed in different labs, were both tampered with in order to switch them for samples from a different person (person B), is a great deal lower.

Then the question becomes - is this extremely elaborate conspiracy to tamper independently with two different samples from different locations and tested in different labs really more likely than the notion that the samples were genuine?

As for lawyer on team B being good enough to convince me that there wasn't a reason, nor an opportunity nor enough money to tamper with the sample of the intestines, I assure you, in this hypotheses, the lawyer for team A did provide many very convincing reasons why people would have wanted the public to believe AA was FS and not GD Anastasia. Even today, as we write these post, there are political and personal reasons for people to want the door closed on this case, the brutal murders of the royal family, that has lasted 90 years.

My point here is that because of the hair sample, tampering with just the intestinal sample wouldn't have been any use. The intestinal sample would have then given a different result from what it gave, which means that it would have given a different result from the hair sample (which it didn't). Since they gave the same result, it means that neither was tampered with or that both were tampered with. The notion of just one of them being tampered with is ruled out.

All a lawyer on team A had to do is create doubt in the mind of the jurists and it's a real up hill battle for the opposition, lawyers on team B.

Interesting that you'd say that all you have to do is to create doubt in the mind of the jurists. While that may be true, creationists have managed to cast doubt about evolution in more than half the US population (and ditto for the climate change deniers and their PR success - and some of these people have been quite open about the fact that they're in the business of spreading doubt) but it doesn't mean that evolution is wrong or creationism is right, it just means that one side has better PR than the other. A clever lawyer can always cast doubt on scientific results because the American public is unfortunately predisposed to mistrust science and scientists. However, I would hope that this isn't really the standard you'd want to apply to this question. It's very easy to cast doubt on true results but it doesn't stop them being true.

So, what evidence can you provide to convince those of us on the jury? Because what you've presented thus far has been presented rather arrogantly, almost as if I the other jurists are obliged to believe you and your team because you know about the DNA/mtDNA tests. Well, we can't get to the tests until you can prove the sample is AA's.

It isn't arrogance, it's frustration. Every time I mention independent confirmation by a second sample, you just come back to the chain of custody of the first sample, as though this second sample was irrelevant. I have yet to hear a coherent explanation from any of the Anna Anderson supporters about how the intestinal sample and the hair sample gave the same result if they weren't both from her. Feel free to give a stab at it. Because that's the thing I'd be asking if I was a lawyer on the other side of the issue. I'd be asking whether you were claiming that a massive conspiracy was going on or whether you were claiming that it was an incredible coincidence. Which is really another way of asking why, if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, you're so sure it's a caterpillar

[AGRBear]

You have told me:
>>Who tested the hair? Mark Stoneking and Terry Melton. You really didn't know?<<

>>hair in the book<<

Where did someone find the book with the hair?
Why did anyone think the hair was AA's.
Who found the book?
Who is Stoneking and Melton?

Not everyone knows the details. As for myself, I'm sitting on the jury during this hypothetical case, so I have no prior information of this subject. If I did, I would have been excused by either side and never would have served on the jury.

Interesting that you'd say that all you have to do is to create doubt in the mind of the jurists. While that may be true, creationists have managed to cast doubt about evolution in more than half the US population (and ditto for the climate change deniers and their PR success - and some of these people have been quite open about the fact that they're in the business of spreading doubt) but it doesn't mean that evolution is wrong or creationism is right, it just means that one side has better PR than the other. A clever lawyer can always cast doubt on scientific results because the American public is unfortunately predisposed to mistrust science and scientists. However, I would hope that this isn't really the standard you'd want to apply to this question. It's very easy to cast doubt on true results but it doesn't stop them being true.

What has creationists have to do with this jury trial?

Yes, it may be frustrating to you and your lawyers, but, it's, now, up to you to convince me. The lawyers for team A knew their subjects and presented people who knew their subject. All were believable and held high credential in their field. Demeaning them is a trick that will not work. I need facts that will give me the information that will set aside their excellent presentation.

Tell me more about the hospitals' treatment of samples. Let me start this line of questioning for you and your lawyers: Do they have records showing AA's samples were never used for research?

AGRBear

[Elspeth]

Originally Posted by AGRBear

You have told me:
>>Who tested the hair? Mark Stoneking and Terry Melton. You really didn't know?<<

>>hair in the book<<

Where did someone find the book with the hair?
Why did anyone think the hair was AA's.
Who found the book?
Who is Stoneking and Melton?

Not everyone knows the details. As for myself, I'm sitting on the jury during this hypothetical case, so I have no prior information of this subject. If I did, I would have been excused by either side and never would have served on the jury.

Are you really wanting a rehash of all these details from all these other threads? The attorney arguing the case that Anna Anderson wasn't Grand Duchess Anastasia would have these details to hand, as would the attorney arguing your case, and if you'd already been persuaded about the chain of custody, you'd already have been told a lot of these details.

We already know that the scientists who did the analyses are reputable scientists in relevant fields of study and that their results were published in a highly regarded peer-reviewed journal. Please don't tell me that yet another rehash of the professional credentials of Mark Stoneking and Terry Melton would make any difference at this point. I don't know if a jury would be impressed by Mark Stoneking's position as an acknowledged expert on mtDNA; I suppose it depends on the jury.

What has creationists have to do with this jury trial?

The same tactics. Plant doubt about a point of fact and declare victory.

Yes, it may be frustrating to you and your lawyers, but, it's, now, up to you to convince me. The lawyers for team A knew their subjects and presented people who knew their subject. All were believable and held high credential in their field. Demeaning them is a trick that will not work. I need facts that will give me the information that will set aside their excellent presentation.

As you very well know, there are facts all over the threads here and at Alexander Palace. I'm not going into a long rehash of all the details in this thread too. The point here is whether a sample requires an intact chain of custody in order to be admitted as evidence, which is what you claimed a few posts back, not whether a sample without an intact chain of custody would convince a jury of anything. The latter depends a lot on corroborating evidence, the skills of the lawyers involved, and the makeup of the jury, it isn't a black-and-white issue.

I'd simply like an answer to the question, which so far none of the Anderson supporters seem to want to answer, "I have yet to hear a coherent explanation from any of the Anna Anderson supporters about how the intestinal sample and the hair sample gave the same result if they weren't both from her. Feel free to give a stab at it. Because that's the thing I'd be asking if I was a lawyer on the other side of the issue. I'd be asking whether you were claiming that a massive conspiracy was going on or whether you were claiming that it was an incredible coincidence. Which is really another way of asking why, if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, you're so sure it's a caterpillar."

[AGRBear]

This is just one site where I found Mark S. mentioned:

Stanford study questions identity of alleged Romanov bones

I'll be back with something about Melton.


AGRBear

[AGRBear]

I just noticed that AWF has talked about Dr. Terry Melton in her first post on this thread.

Now, I'll have to go and read it.

Okay, I've read it.

AWF wrote in part:

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.

Nor am I questioning the accuracy of her work. Nor am I questioned the accuracy of Drs. Gill's and King/Ginther's works.

What I am questioning is the sample of AA's was not secure, in a teaching and research hospital where it could have been compromised between the years 1979 and 1992. Once the sample became part of a law suit, it was then and only them placed into a secured place. Only then can we have an unbroken chain of custody.

This is a site I found Mark Stoneking's name. Evidently he's connected to the Knight controversy.

http://news-service.stanford.edu/new...omanov-33.html

AGRBear

[Anna was Franziska]

Originally Posted by AGRBear

I just noticed that AWF has talked about Dr. Terry Melton in her first post on this thread.

Now, I'll have to go and read it.

Okay, I've read it.

AWF wrote in part:


Nor am I questioning the accuracy of her work. Nor am I questioned the accuracy of Drs. Gill's and King/Ginther's works.

What I am questioning is the sample of AA's was not secure, in a teaching and research hospital where it could have been compromised between the years 1979 and 1992. Once the sample became part of a law suit, it was then and only them placed into a secured place. Only then can we have an unbroken chain of custody.

This is a site I found Mark Stoneking's name. Evidently he's connected to the Knight controversy.

Finger points to new evidence: Remains may not be Romanovs'

AGRBear

Bear, the quote you attribute to me was actually taken from a post by FA of AP from the Alt. Talk site. There is an entire thread here on this site on the Knight controversy as you call it but nobody has posted in it. It's been discussed a length on AP and shown to be inaccuarate and not even worthy of consideration.


Bear, please answer WHY, if you don't believe in claimants, that you grasp at every single straw and come up with any wild theory you can to try to make room for some after they've been proven false? This is not "a journey to the truth" this is a journey backward and away from it! If you "only enjoy the ride" it's a wild goose chase you crave, not answers, because we have them and you reject them. How can you ever get an answer if you always find reasons to doubt it, as outlandish as they may be? The truth is the truth and not what you would prefer it to be.

[Elspeth]

Originally Posted by AGRBear

Nor am I questioning the accuracy of her work. Nor am I questioned the accuracy of Drs. Gill's and King/Ginther's works.

What I am questioning is the sample of AA's was not secure, in a teaching and research hospital where it could have been compromised between the years 1979 and 1992. Once the sample became part of a law suit, it was then and only them placed into a secured place. Only then can we have an unbroken chain of custody.

Nobody is disputing that. We're just saying that an unbroken chain of custody isn't some sort of holy grail. The basic issue is the identity of the sample, not the purity of the chain of custody. If you're going to say that the lack of an unbroken chain of custody casts doubt on the identity, then you're going to have to explain the match between the intestine sample and the hair sample, which provides strong support for the identity unless you invoke an incredible coincidence or a successful conspiracy to tamper with both samples independently to switch both of them to samples from another person. So far none of the Anna Anderson supporters have come up with an explanation.

This is a site I found Mark Stoneking's name. Evidently he's connected to the Knight controversy.

Finger points to new evidence: Remains may not be Romanovs'

AGRBear

He isn't a coauthor on the paper describing the identification of the Romanov remains. Nor, for that matter, is Terry Melton.

Identification of the remains of the Romanov famil...[Nat Genet. 1994] - PubMed Result

The only place he was mentioned in that article you linked to was where he gave an opinion about the charge by Alec Knight.

Here are some sites about Mark Stoneking that are actually about him.

Mark Stoneking - Publications

and another

Mark Stoneking - CV

and another

NOVA Online | Neanderthals on Trial | Tracing Ancestry with MtDNA

This guy is a world-class expert in mtDNA analysis.

[AGRBear]

I think your attack upon me is called a "diversion". Are you doing so because you do not know the answers?

Back to subject please.

So, who found the hair in the book?

AGRBear

[Elspeth]

Originally Posted by AGRBear

I think your attack upon me is called a "diversion". Are you doing so because you do not know the answers?

What attack?

Back to subject please.

I'm the one who IS on the subject. The subject is whether a flawed chain of custody makes a sample inadmissible as evidence. It would appear that it doesn't. In the present case, where there's independent confirmation of the source of the sample, that lends strong support to the identity to make up for the flaws in the chain of custody. This is often the case with ancient DNA samples, and it doesn't preclude their being used as evidence.

Your continued failure to address the question of how the two samples give a match if they aren't both from Anna Anderson is noted. That isn't an attack, by the way.

So, who found the hair in the book?

Look it up if you want to know. Stop asking if you already know. That isn't the topic we're discussing.

[AGRBear]

Elspeth,

I was not referring to your posts. I was responding to AWF's post. Sorry for the confusion.

No, I don't know who found the hair. I may have read about it somewhere but that was some time ago and I do not recall the name/names nor the details. Is it important? Well, not really if we're talking about the world's troubles. However, it is a fact which we need to know for this discussion, I believe. And, if you tell me where to find the source, I'd be more than happy to look it up and share it with everyone.

AGRBear

PS Someone has IM the information which is said to be in Kleir and Mingay's book THE QUEST FOR ANASSTASIA. I will dig out my book and read what it says about the hair which Elspeth is referring in her posts.

[AGRBear]

p. 221 of Kleir and Mingay's THE QUEST FOR ANASTASIA:

>>From Klier and Mingay:
The hair sample used by Dr. Stoneking and his researchers does not have an impeccable provenance. Susan Burkhart, a lover of the Romanov legend, one day dropped into a bookshop in Chapel Hill, NC, to browse through the latest selection of Anastasia and Romanov memorabilia made available to the shop from the sale of part of Jack Manahan's estate. As Susan was looking through one of the books she found an envelope, with the legend 'Hair of Princess Anastasia' written on the envelope. The hair was in a clump, as though it came from a hair brush, and it was dyed. Jack washed and tinted his wife's hair throughout their marriage. Of most importance, perhaps, from the scientific point of view, the hair had roots. While mitochondrial DNA is easier to obtain from a piece of tissue, it can also be recoverable from a small amount of material, such as a hair follicle. It is very difficult to extract DNA from a cut lock of hair.

Susan Burkhart contacted one of Anna's biographers. Peter Kurth. In partnership with Mandelbaum, they chose Dr. Stoneking to assist them in their search, offering 'to make him famous'. Dr. Stoneking is a member of the Department of Anthropology at Pennsylvania State University and has conducted wide-ranging research on population genetics, from which he has developed an extensive database. Six strands of hair were placed in an envelope and sent by Federal Express to Stoneking's centre, where he arranged for graduate student Terry Melton to do the actual scientific analysis.<<

P. 222

>>Melton received the six hairs and used five of them to extract the available mitochondrial.<<

>>...she was able to sequence it and compare it with the patterns from the Tsar and Tsarina published by Gill in Nature Genetics. She said there were dix differences across the region examined, which indicated no possibility that the hair came from a person related to the Imperial Family.<<

p. 223>>...'If she was not Grand Duchess Anastasia, who was she?' At the same time as conducting he scientific testing commissioned by the Schweitzers, Peter Gill, also carried out a DNA test sample supplied via film-maker Julian Nott. This sample came from the great-nephew of Franziska Schanzkowska, a man named Carl Maucher, who was the grandson of one of Franziska's sisters. His mitochondrial DNA matched the patter established at the Forensic Science Service.

Peter Gill....: 'This finding supports the hypothesis that Anna Anderson and Franziska Schankowska were the same person.'<<

>>The Foresnsic Science Service has a database of more than 300 Caucasian samples and found no matching sequence.... This led Gill to say 'the chance of matching the profiles is less than one in 300.'<<

I'll make comments later. I've got a contractor needing some answers.

AGRBear

[Elspeth]

Originally Posted by AGRBear

p. 221 of Kleir and Mingay's THE QUEST FOR ANASTASIA:

>>From Klier and Mingay:
The hair sample used by Dr. Stoneking and his researchers does not have an impeccable provenance. Susan Burkhart, a lover of the Romanov legend, one day dropped into a bookshop in Chapel Hill, NC, to browse through the latest selection of Anastasia and Romanov memorabilia made available to the shop from the sale of part of Jack Manahan's estate. As Susan was looking through one of the books she found an envelope, with the legend 'Hair of Princess Anastasia' written on the envelope. The hair was in a clump, as though it came from a hair brush, and it was dyed. Jack washed and tinted his wife's hair throughout their marriage. Of most importance, perhaps, from the scientific point of view, the hair had roots. While mitochondrial DNA is easier to obtain from a piece of tissue, it can also be recoverable from a small amount of material, such as a hair follicle. It is very difficult to extract DNA from a cut lock of hair.

Susan Burkhart contacted one of Anna's biographers. Peter Kurth. In partnership with Mandelbaum, they chose Dr. Stoneking to assist them in their search, offering 'to make him famous'. Dr. Stoneking is a member of the Department of Anthropology at Pennsylvania State University and has conducted wide-ranging research on population genetics, from which he has developed an extensive database. Six strands of hair were placed in an envelope and sent by Federal Express to Stoneking's centre, where he arranged for graduate student Terry Melton to do the actual scientific analysis.<<

Well, I'm not sure of the relative timing, but in the early 1990s Dr Stoneking was already doing the Mitochondrial Eve stuff. I think that made him famous enough; I'm pretty sure it's better known to most people than his work with Anna Anderson's hair sample.

[AGRBear]

So, back to the hair:

>>Susan Burkhart, a lover of the Romanov legend, one day dropped into a bookshop in Chapel Hill, NC, to browse through the latest selection of Anastasia and Romanov memorabilia made available to the shop from the sale of part of Jack Manahan's estate.<<

Although this appears to be evidence which gives weight to the testing of the intestines which most believe are that of AA's, I'm not sure if it could stand alone if a judge disallowed the samples of the intestine due to the inability to prove the chain-of-custody.

>> The hair was in a clump, as though it came from a hair brush, and it was dyed <<could have been stolen from any of Gertrude's grandchildren's brushes and they would never had known anyone had been in their home.

And, why, if Jack or AA wanted to save hair, wouldn't he/she have saved cut hair, which was often done as keepsakes?

AGRBear