DNA and the law

[ChatNoir]

Originally Posted by tsarskoe

I should say Hallux Vulgus is not at all rare. It is a coincidence that both AA and ANR had it, but since it is not rare this fact is not very impressive.

And how many teenagers do you know who has "the big toe bent over in the middle so that it forms a bunion"?

[Elspeth]

And of course the answer to that question will be posted in the Anna Anderson Claims thread, right? On account of it isn't about DNA.

[tsarskoe]

Sorry Elspeth, I will repost this in the correct forum.

Thank you

[Anna was Franziska]

List of legal cases decided by mtDNA testing like AA's. Legal precedence proving the DNA test on AA WOULD hold up in court!

Mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) Cases

1. State v. Council, 335 S.C. 1, 515 S.E.2d 508 (S.C., Apr 05, 1999) (NO. 2493 2) council.PDF
2. People v. Klinger, 713 N.Y.S.2d 823, 2000 N.Y. Slip Op. 20450 (N.Y.Co.Ct., Sep 05, 2000) (NO. 0849/00) klinger1.PDF
3. State v. Smith, 100 Wash.App. 1064, 2000 WL 688180 (Wash.App. Div. 2, May 26, 2000) (NO. 23406-8-II) smith.htm
4. State v. Underwood, 134 N.C.App. 533, 518 S.E.2d 231 (N.C.App., Aug 17, 1999) (NO. COA98-648) underwood.htm
5. State v. Ware, 1999 WL 233592 (Tenn.Crim.App., Apr 20, 1999) (NO. 03C01-9705CR00164) ware.PDF
6. Adams v. Mississippi, 2001 WL 410800 (Miss.App., Apr 24, 2001) (NO. 2000-KA-00242-COA) adams.PDF
7. Connecticut v. Pappas (Connecticut Supreme Court Ruling, SC16257, release date 7/24/01) pappas1.PDF
8. Sheckells v. Texas, 2001 WL 1178828 (Tex.App.-Dallas) Sheckells.htm
9. Tennessee v. Scott (S.Ct. of Tennessee, No.96-C-1362, 10/3/00) scott.PDF
10. People v. Holtzer, 2003 WL 722452 Mich.App., Feb. 25, 2003. Holtzer.PDF
11. New York v. Ko, Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, 4/22/03 Ko.PDF
12. Magaletti v. State Fla.App. 2 Dist.,4/4/03 magaletta1.PDF
13. Lewis v. Alabama, Crim. App. Alabama, CR-99-1155. 5/30/02. lewis.PDF
14. U.S. v. Beverly, 369 F.3d 516, C.A.6 (Ohio), 2004. US V. Beverly.PDF
15. Wagner v. State, Maryland Court of Special Appeals, No. 2034 1/3/05. Wagner.PDF
16. Michigan v. Mason, Michigan Court of Appeals No. 251533, 12/21/04. Mason.PDF
17. U.S. v. Chase, Superior Court of the District of Columbia, Criminal Division, No.F-7330-99, 1/10/05 chase.PDF
18. State v. West, 274 Conn. 605, --- A.2d ----, 7/26/05, The fact that mtDNA hair analysis is more precise than microscopic hair analysis does not render evidence regarding the latter inadmissible. The necessarily imprecise character of the hair identification goes to the weight of the microscopic hair analysis testimony, rather than its admissibility. west.PDF
19. People v. Sutherland, Illinois Supreme Court, # 99047, 9/21/06, Admissibility of the mtDNA evidence was not at issue on appeal but the trial court ruled it was admissible pursuant to Frye. Sutherland.PDF
20. Vaughn v. State, Supreme Court of Georgia, No.S07A0740, 6/4/07, Admissibility of the mtDNA evidence was upheld. Vaughn v. Georgia.PDF
21. State v. Brochu, Vermont Supreme Court, 2008 VT 21, No. 2005-177, 3/7/08, the court concluded that it was not an abuse of discretion to admit mtDNA evidence under the relevancy standard where the defendant’s mtDNA profile was commonly found in the population. The defendant has not challenged the science and technology behind mtDNA evidence. Brochu.PDF

There are other rulings where courts have allowed mtDNA evidence in at trial. Some of those cases are listed below:

1. R.v. Murrin (British Columbia Supreme Court, Vancouver). murrin.htm
2. Connecticut v. Pappas pappas.PDF (see above appellate decision)
3. Florida v. Magaletti magaletti.PDF (see above appellate decision)
4. Maryland v. Williams williams.PDF
5. Colorado v. Than than.PDF
6. Colorado v. Sierra-Omi ni Sierra-Omini.PDF
7. California v. Johnson (San Diego County) johnson.PDF
8. Delaware v. Hammons, Delaware Superior Court, 3/28/02 (NO. 9809019760) Hammons.PDF
9. U.S. v. Coleman, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Missouri. coleman.PDF
10. Minnesota v. Zanter Zanter.PDF
11. California v. Scott Lee Peterson (Stanislaus County) 11/18/03 peterson.PDF
12. New Jersey v. Jimenez, 9/1/04 Jimenez.PDF
13. R. v. Woodcock, Ontario Superior Court of Justice O.J. No. 5186, Court File No. 8808-97, 8/18/06. Woodcock.PDF

[AGRBear]

If there were lawyers involved, they would use court cases to prove or disprove a point they were making. You can place a hundred more examples on this thread that support your case AWF, and, a lawyer could post a hundred examples that would support AA's case.

None of this is going into court.

Why?

AA is dead and and the Romanovs are happy with the DNA reports.

If this long lost child of AA's pops up and makes a claim, then we'd see this in a court.

Until then, we're just amateur sleuths posting now and then with various opinions on what we've read, seen or experienced.

And this amateur sleuth is still hovering over the problem of "chain of custody", which does cause doubts, in this case.

AGRBear

[mmullins207]

Anna wasn't Franziska. Because Anna appeared in Berlin weeks before Franziska disappeared.

Hang on. Wasn't there DNA testing that said Anna was Franziska ? So that means the DNA testing was fake.

Hang on. Didn't the DNA testing also say Anna wasn't Anastasia ? The DNA testing saying Anna was Franziska was fake. So why wouldn't the DNA testing saying Anna wasn't Anastasia also be fake.

You're having a lend of us.

[Anna was Franziska]

Originally Posted by mmullins207

Anna wasn't Franziska. Because Anna appeared in Berlin weeks before Franziska disappeared.

Wrong. FS wasn't reported missing immediately as people are sometimes not even today. Her family lived many miles away, and there were no cell phones and email to keep in constant contact. So it took the people she was boarding with a little while to figure out she hadn't just run off, and contact her family. This does NOT mean they were accounted for at the same time. They were not.

Hang on. Wasn't there DNA testing that said Anna was Franziska ? So that means the DNA testing was fake.

No it wasn't. Many reputable doctors and scientists were involved, including Peter Gill and Terry Melton. I have spoken to Melton myself.

Hang on. Didn't the DNA testing also say Anna wasn't Anastasia ? The DNA testing saying Anna was Franziska was fake. So why wouldn't the DNA testing saying Anna wasn't Anastasia also be fake.

You're having a lend of us.

The 1994 DNA tests not only said AA wasn't Anastasia and matched FS's family, but recent discoveries in 2007 of the last two missing bodies and further DNA testing in 2008 have proven all of the royal family are now accounted for, dead in Ekaterinburg in 1918. The DNA is not 'fake'. If you knew the whole story, you would know this is true. If you are really interested in the truth and not an entertaining conspiracy theory, I could give you some links to educate yourself on the matter so you could understand and know for sure. Are you?

[ChatNoir]

Originally Posted by Anna was Franziska

Wrong. FS wasn't reported missing immediately as people are sometimes not even today. Her family lived many miles away, and there were no cell phones and email to keep in constant contact. So it took the people she was boarding with a little while to figure out she hadn't just run off, and contact her family. This does NOT mean they were accounted for at the same time. They were not.

And how do you know this?
And what about Felix, who stated that his birthday card from Franzisca arrived 8 to 14 days late? His birthday was on February 17th. And Franzisca excused her tardiness with having had too much work.

[Anna was Franziska]

Oh, Chat, there's no proof that card even existed, or when it was sent or when it arrived. Also you can't expect the mail was as rapid as it is today. You're talking about a ravaged, destitute postwar city in the middle of political turmoil, and even more rioting and unrest in outlying areas. Who knows how long it would take a letter to arrive in Pomerania from Berlin in 1920? But mainly, it doesn't matter, because the question of AA's identity is now over. Also, this is OT to this thread, "DNA and the law." Remember, the AA's claim thread was closed to to repetition, and here it goes again...

{removed accusation of another member having multiple IDs-Lady Jennifer}

[ChatNoir]

Originally Posted by Anna was Franziska

Oh, Chat, there's no proof that card even existed, or when it was sent or when it arrived.

No, there is no proof. Only Felix Schanzkowsky's recollection of it.

Also you can't expect the mail was as rapid as it is today. You're talking about a ravaged, destitute postwar city in the middle of political turmoil, and even more rioting and unrest in outlying areas. Who knows how long it would take a letter to arrive in Pomerania from Berlin in 1920?

Obviously, you don't know German "gründlichkeit" very well. There is also no proof that Felix was in Pomerania at the time.

But mainly, it doesn't matter, because the question of AA's identity is now over. Also, this is OT to this thread, "DNA and the law." Remember, the AA's claim thread was closed to to repetition, and here it goes again...

No, the identity question is not over. DNA has only established a maternal relationship to the Schanzkowskis, not that AA was FS.

{removed quote & response to deleted comment from above-Lady Jennifer}

[Lady Jennifer]

Let's stay on topic please. Please do not accuse people of having multiple IDs on the forum. If you have real concerns please contact a moderator or a Admin by PM & do not bring it up in this or any thread.

Lady Jennifer
Russian Moderator

[J Kendrick]

So.... What are we all to make of this latest development in DNA research?

From the New York Times:

DNA Evidence Can Be Fabricated, Scientists Show

By Andrew Pollack
Published: August 17, 2009

Scientists in Israel have demonstrated that it is possible to fabricate DNA evidence, undermining the credibility of what has been considered the gold standard of proof in criminal cases.

The scientists fabricated blood and saliva samples containing DNA from a person other than the donor of the blood and saliva. They also showed that if they had access to a DNA profile in a database, they could construct a sample of DNA to match that profile without obtaining any tissue from that person.

“You can just engineer a crime scene,” said Dan Frumkin, lead author of the paper, which has been published online by the journal Forensic Science International: Genetics. “Any biology undergraduate could perform this.”...

See the complete article at:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/18/sc...8dna.html?_r=2

[Anna was Franziska]

I expected one of you claimant supporters to grab onto this. However, you didn't understand the whole story. There are two reasons this does not mean a thing in the cases of our claimants:

1. It can't be fabricated unless you have the original there to copy, such as a person in custody, or a record of his DNA from a criminal database- the thing they are worried about is crooked police departments who have a suspect in custody taking DNA from him, duplicating it and planting it at the scene of the crime to frame him. You cannot duplicate what you do not already have.

2.Since no nuclear DNA samples existed from the children when they were alive to compare to the bones of the royal children, there is no way the DNA patterns found by the scientists in the bones could have been invented or made up. They can only be copied, such as from a database, and since there was nothing to copy, it couldn't have happened. Sorry.

Scientists in Israel prove DNA can be fabricated - 8/18/09 - San Francisco News - abc7news.com

There is a test that can be done which proves which DNA is real and which is faked so no one is ever going to be able to get away with it. The news story is about criminal cases only, there is nothing about identity or paternity.

[Warren]

Sorry guys, the torch for "Anna Anderson was Anastasia" has been well and truly extinguished and we are not going to reopen the subject.

Warren
TRF Administrator