DNA and the law

[Elspeth]

Originally Posted by ChatNoir

We have a book on the market now alleging that the Bush administration paid the CIA 5 million dollars in hush money in order to "prove" the existence of WMD in Iraq.
The growing hospital scandal at UCLA at present seems to involve up to 127 persons.
A scientist is believed to be the cause of the anthrax scare.
But we are supposed to accept the story of AA's putative intestines and hair whose DNA ties her to Franziska Schanzkowska with whom she had nothing in common instead of Grand Duchess Anastasia with whom she shared every single trait.

This is relevant because...?

[ChatNoir]

Because these are the stories that have made headlines in my paper the last week and again show us how very little we know about what goes on behind the scenes until it is exposed to us.
Makes me wonder even more about the samples and where they came from.
AA walked like a duck. She talked like a duck.
But she really was a caterpillar.
Sorry, it just doesn't make sense to me.

[Warren]

Originally Posted by ChatNoir

...how very little we know about what goes on behind the scenes until it is exposed to us.

Ah! George Bush paid money to the CIA and that's evidence of the DNA scientists being involved in a conspiracy. Can't fault that logic. Case closed!

[Elspeth]

Originally Posted by ChatNoir

Because these are the stories that have made headlines in my paper the last week and again show us how very little we know about what goes on behind the scenes until it is exposed to us.
Makes me wonder even more about the samples and where they came from.

I still don't see the reasoning here. One scientist working in a completely unrelated field has been fingered for a crime, and this casts doubt on the Anderson samples? Is there any actual evidence that the Anderson samples were tampered with or that the researchers falsified their data, or are we still in the realms of wishful thinking? I mean, I think we're all aware that there are things going on behind the scenes of just about any event that outsiders don't know about, but that doesn't mean that conspiracy theories become credible.

[ChatNoir]

I don't think that one scientist being fingered for a crime automatically casts doubt on every other scientist. It is just part of the news that has gone around this week that serves to illustrate how different a story can look at the end than at the beginning. And AA being found to be a person with whom she has nothing in common is still puzzling to me.

From "Tsar": In 1994, at the very moment the DNA experts concluded that Mrs, Anderson was not the tsar's daughter, new forensic comparions of her face an ears with pictures of the young Anastasia, commissioned for a television documentary in England and following routine procedures of legal identification, reached exactly the opposite conclusion. The expereiment was later successfully repeated by specialists in the United States, and their conclusions, too, were delivered with "certainty" - Anna Anderson was Anastasia. The DNA tests have won the hour, and will probably stand as the final work on a case that has left everyone who came near it, for or against, with a sense of tragedy and persistent, nagging doubts.

[AGRBear]

Bear:>>[i] 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.<<

I'd like to know if AA's samples were ever used in research.

Elspeth:
>> I can see a judge cautioning a jury to be wary of the results from the intestinal sample if it was the only sample available - although under the circumstances, I'd be surprised if it was disallowed altogether unless they were able to prove some sort of underhanded behaviour by the hospital or some evidence that the sample was switched or tampered <<

In this scenario: Lawyers on team A did not claim there was "some sort of underhanded behaviour by the hospital".

Elspeth:
>>All this "the samples could have been switched" business is all very well - you can come up with all sorts of scenarios to cast doubt on the authenticity of a sample - but in order to have the samples ruled inadmissible you have to show that there's reason to believe that they're actually false. And "reason to believe" means that you need more than just handwaving to show that there's a problem with them. Both of them. Simultaneously. They'd both have had to be switched in order to give the same results (unless you're going to assert collusion by the scientists, which is potential defamation unless you have some backup). Unless your lawyer can convince the judge that this is so likely that the results are worthless, I see no basis for the judge to rule the samples inadmissible.<<

We've past this point. Please go back and reread my posts which voiced that the DNA was allowed, however, the lawyers of team A, has convinced me that the chain of custody is important, therefore, I am waiting for team B, who's business it is to convince me that the chain of custody may be missing BUT can and will show me proof of how impossible it was to tamper with the samples and the clump of hair did indeed come from AA because.... Have you? No.

As for conspiracy, the proof is not placed upon lawyers of team A, all they had to do was placed doubt in my mind, and, they did so as I've already posted.

Did lawyers of team A know the names, the dates, etc. etc. of anyone who was involved in a actual "conspiracy"? No. But they gave the jury very believable information about the possibilities of political and or personal importance of why people wanted the public to believe AA was FS.

So, I've, now, turned my attention to the lawyers of team B, who should be able to convince me that AA was FS. When I agreed to take up the position as a jurist, I promised to listen to ALL the evidence.

Meanwhile, team B needs to convince Chat, who we can placed next to me as jurists no. 10, does believe AA was GD Anastasia, therefore, he's waiting for lawyers of team B for evidence to prove AA was not GD Anastasia.

All lawyers, who are experienced in the court and excellent in their occupation, know DNA/mtDNA is not always enough in cases like this one.

So, where are we at this point? Team B has arrogantly stated that I should believe the samples of intestine weren't compromised and that it's ridiculous to think that some unknown snuck into the lab and made a switch AND placed a clump of hair in an envelope because they wanted the public to believe AA was FS..

So, here I sit, wondering when team B is going to realize DNA/mtDNA isn't always enough in cases like this one.

AGRBear

[OlgaNikolaievna]

What? George Bush paid the CIA to switch the intestines?

[Elspeth]

Originally Posted by AGRBear

We've past this point. Please go back and reread my posts which voiced that the DNA was allowed, however, the lawyers of team A, has convinced me that the chain of custody is important, therefore, I am waiting for team B, who's business it is to convince me that the chain of custody may be missing BUT can and will show me proof of how impossible it was to tamper with the samples and the clump of hair did indeed come from AA because.... Have you? No.

I'm not trying to. I'm just countering your position from several posts ago that the lack of a complete chain of custody for the intestine sample would disqualify it as evidence. I'm glad you seem to have changed your mind on that one.

As to whether a jury would be convinced one way or the other, I don't care. What we have here is a scientifically strong result obtained by reputable experts. Whether the result would impress jurors is a separate issue and depends on the skills of the various lawyers. Whichever way these potential jurors would end up voting, the scientific results are the same.

[AGRBear]

Originally Posted by Elspeth

I'm not trying to. I'm just countering your position from several posts ago that the lack of a complete chain of custody for the intestine sample would disqualify it as evidence. I'm glad you seem to have changed your mind on that one.

I haven't changed my mind, I just have not made up my mind, therein lies the difference. I'm still open to information.

Elspeth:

As to whether a jury would be convinced one way or the other, I don't care. What we have here is a scientifically strong result obtained by reputable experts. Whether the result would impress jurors is a separate issue and depends on the skills of the various lawyers. Whichever way these potential jurors would end up voting, the scientific results are the same.

What you have is scientifically strong but in this scenario I am a jurist, who is not convinced, therefore, in this case you need more. Since the DNA / mtDNA in your mind proves AA was FS, then it should not be so difficult to present evidence. You've mentioned the clump of hair. I've posted the information about the clump of hair.

Boris has presented the foot deformity of AA's and GD Anastasia's. Felix signed a sworn statement [this means it is not heresay but a legal document] that FS did not have such a deformity.

----
Side track:

The abilities of lawyers to present their case is a separate issue and like our lawyer friends, who deal in criminal law, say, they may loose a case and a bad guy might get away, but, in the end the criminal always is stupid enough to get himself into trouble, again, and justice will be served. OJ is a perfect example. There's no "black glove" this time. Our courts may not be perfect but there better than anyone else's in this world of ours.

AGRBear

[Elspeth]

Originally Posted by AGRBear

I haven't changed my mind, I just have not made up my mind, therein lies the difference. I'm still open to information.

In post 13 you said "In a real court of law here in the USA, if it is proven that the chain of custody can not be proven then everything which surrounds the samples of the intestine will not be admitted into evidence during the case."

Obviously the chain of custody of the intestinal sample can't be proven. So if you weren't claiming that the intestinal sample wouldn't be admitted into evidence, it wasn't clear from your post.

What you have is scientifically strong but in this scenario I am a jurist, who is not convinced, therefore, in this case you need more. Since the DNA / mtDNA in your mind proves AA was FS, then it should not be so difficult to present evidence.

I have said nothing of the sort. I've said that the mismatch between Prince Philip's mtDNA sample and the two independent samples from Anna Anderson show that she wasn't related to the Tsarina. Her identification as Franziska Schankowska is a lot less certain.

[BorisRom]

Originally Posted by Elspeth

We don't know that Anna Anderson had congenital hallux valgus. We simply have the word of a doctor who treated her for TB that she must have done. That's hardly conclusive. We don't know whether the exact angle of the deformation was the same for both of them. We don't know a lot of things about this claim. We know a lot more about the DNA, which the Anderson apologists are simply brushing aside.

Elspeth,
Thus, you agree that Anna Anderson had hallus valgus. (you doubt, that she had congenital HV only). You know also, that Felix Shanzkowsky has officially refused to recognize АА as the sister and he has told, that his sister (FS) "had beautiful feet".
In this case, - I think - you cannot trust results of identification of DNA FS \AA.
It is elementary logic. Yes?
Regards
Boris

[Elspeth]

I don't know how many times I'm going to have to repeat that I don't care whether Anna Anderson was Franziska Schankowska or not, and the DNA results, while supportive of the identity, are by no means conclusive.

I'm just wondering why you're applying such an obvious double standard to the DNA results and this business about the hallux valgus.

[BorisRom]

Originally Posted by Elspeth

<...> I'm just wondering why you're applying such an obvious double standard to the DNA results and this business about the hallux valgus.

I prefer data of medical statistics (of CHV), because its reliability in 3000 times more to reliability of the DNA results (of 1990th years). Besides, data of medical statistics are free from suspicions in mistakes or falsification (unlike the data of tests of DNA).
Even if we shall consider not congenital HV of AA and ANR, but only the heavy form of HV: only 0,0152 % from the surveyed women (1 : 6580) have it. In view of what both women (AA and ANR) had heavier form of HV on right foot, we have probability of concurrence 1:13000. It all the same is more than a reliability of the DNA results of 1990th years.
Thus, I'm not double standards! Only elementary logic.
Regards
Boris

[Warren]

Posts not relevant to the thread topic have been moved over to the Anna Anderson's claim to be GD Anastasia thread.

Warren
Russian Forums moderator

[Elspeth]

Originally Posted by BorisRom

I prefer data of medical statistics (of CHV), because its reliability in 3000 times more to reliability of the DNA results (of 1990th years). Besides, data of medical statistics are free from suspicions in mistakes or falsification (unlike the data of tests of DNA).
Even if we shall consider not congenital HV of AA and ANR, but only the heavy form of HV: only 0,0152 % from the surveyed women (1 : 6580) have it. In view of what both women (AA and ANR) had heavier form of HV on right foot, we have probability of concurrence 1:13000. It all the same is more than a reliability of the DNA results of 1990th years.
Thus, I'm not double standards! Only elementary logic.
Regards
Boris

Well, it doesn't matter how many or few people have congenital hallux valgus, does it, if the two ladies concerned had it to different degrees. All the statistics in the world aren't going to help you if the two individual cases aren't the same. Severe hallux valgus isn't necessarily the same for two people.

Do you know how common it is for hallux valgus to be worse on the right foot than the left? My suspicion is that it would be the more common pattern since most people are right-handed and tend to be slightly larger on their right side than their left and since bunions are exacerbated by tight-fitting shoes. I don't know; it's just a suspicion. I also have a suspicion that you don't know either, but aren't looking any deeper than the simple fact that the condition was worse for the same foot for both ladies.

Which is what I mean by applying a double standard. You aren't prepared to accept the results of some of the best mtDNA researchers and forensic scientists, regardless of the fact that barely three years ago Charles Ginther said he thought their work was generally believable (which he didn't need to say if he thought that mtDNA research done in the early to mid 1990s wasn't reliable). Yet you're happy to take the word of a TB doctor about bunions, you haven't checked how common it is for them to be worse on the right foot, and you have no idea if the two ladies had this condition to the same degree as each other. You just know that they both had severe problems with bunions and it was worse on the right foot. So did my grandmother. So did a lot of people's grandmothers by the sound of this thread.

Which brings me to another point that you don't seem to have considered. Bunions don't seem to be all that common these days but everybody's granny seems to have had them. Although the condition is probably genetic, it's exacerbated by ill-fitting footwear. Nowadays you can buy shoes in all sorts of different widths and shapes and sizes, so even some of the high-fashion shoes can still fit pretty well. Nowadays it isn't considered unfeminine to have big feet, to the point where you have to stuff your feet into shoes that are three sizes too small in order to appear attractive. And nowadays a lot of women spend a fair amount of time wearing sports shoes and sandals, which are a lot more forgiving on the feet. Which makes me wonder whether severe hallux valgus was as rare in the early 20th century as it is these days, especially in young women. If that's true (and I'm not necessarily saying that it is, because I don't know), statistics obtained in the last 10 or even 50 years might not be applicable to the Anderson case.

In the meantime, without resorting to accusations of incompetence, dishonesty or both against the scientists who did the DNA research or some sort of massive conspiracy to switch two or three independent samples (depending on when you claim that