More Dissident-Republican Activity

Started by sammymaguire, November 19, 2009, 06:02:24 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

tyssam5

Quote from: Ulick on January 20, 2012, 06:15:12 PM
Quote from: tyssam5 on January 20, 2012, 05:46:18 PM
Seems it's been around for a while and has been accepted by various US agencies. If you know enough about statistics to show his methodology is bullshit (it might be I don't know) you should have appeared for the defence.

And how many courts?

The one below and a couple more.

http://www.wtae.com/news/18918565/detail.html

I'm not arguing that is not a new way of analysing data, both lawyers who appeared for the defence argued similarly that it was a work in progress. Valid argument. However, you saying he 'pulled it out his ass' and that you possessed enough statistical knowledge to prove he was wrong are both not valid arguments.

David McKeown

What's the reaction in Lurgan going to be like tonight?  Im supposed to be going to an engagement party in the railway bar but not sure if it would be the safest idea in the world
2022 Allianz League Prediction Competition Winner

Agent Orange

Quote from: Ulick on January 20, 2012, 06:15:12 PM
Quote from: tyssam5 on January 20, 2012, 05:46:18 PM
Seems it's been around for a while and has been accepted by various US agencies. If you know enough about statistics to show his methodology is bullshit (it might be I don't know) you should have appeared for the defence.

And how many courts?

Only the one. Antrim.

Ulick

Quote from: tyssam5 on January 20, 2012, 06:38:51 PM
The one below and a couple more.

http://www.wtae.com/news/18918565/detail.html

I'm not arguing that is not a new way of analysing data, both lawyers who appeared for the defence argued similarly that it was a work in progress. Valid argument. However, you saying he 'pulled it out his ass' and that you possessed enough statistical knowledge to prove he was wrong are both not valid arguments.

As far as I'm aware the method is accepted by only one court in the world and that is the court of the state in which the Cybergenetics company is based, Pennsylvania. No other US state or European court has found it reliable enough to be used. What was being pushed at the trial that this was a new technology, they emphasised the use of this computer system to back that up, but no one in the media actually explained it was using the same low copy DNA that has been proven unreliable many times before and all Perlin has done is come up with a new way of jiggling the numbers. At the end of the day, if the sample is unreliable there is no safe way of generalising from ii or making safe conclusions based on it, no matter what way you jiggle the numbers. A bit like the tallymen at the elections looking at one constituency box and telling us who is going to win an election. It may be accurate but just as likely to be inaccurate. 

Ulick

Quote from: David McKeown on January 20, 2012, 07:15:47 PM
What's the reaction in Lurgan going to be like tonight?  Im supposed to be going to an engagement party in the railway bar but not sure if it would be the safest idea in the world

You'll be grand. If he'd been convicted it might have been a different matter.

fitzroyalty

Quote from: Ulick on January 20, 2012, 08:07:35 PM
Quote from: David McKeown on January 20, 2012, 07:15:47 PM
What's the reaction in Lurgan going to be like tonight?  Im supposed to be going to an engagement party in the railway bar but not sure if it would be the safest idea in the world

You'll be grand. If he'd been convicted it might have been a different matter.
Aye right. Act with caution.

Rule of thumb when entering the Railway, or the Snakepit as they like to call it.

Ulick

Quote from: fitzroyalty on January 20, 2012, 09:07:58 PM
Aye right. Act with caution.

Rule of thumb when entering the Railway, or the Snakepit as they like to call it.

Was in it the other week and had a right oul time. You wouldn't get Buckfast for that price down here in the big smoke or the Cellar for that matter.

tyssam5

Quote from: Ulick on January 20, 2012, 08:06:16 PM
Quote from: tyssam5 on January 20, 2012, 06:38:51 PM
The one below and a couple more.

http://www.wtae.com/news/18918565/detail.html

I'm not arguing that is not a new way of analysing data, both lawyers who appeared for the defence argued similarly that it was a work in progress. Valid argument. However, you saying he 'pulled it out his ass' and that you possessed enough statistical knowledge to prove he was wrong are both not valid arguments.

As far as I'm aware the method is accepted by only one court in the world and that is the court of the state in which the Cybergenetics company is based, Pennsylvania. No other US state or European court has found it reliable enough to be used. What was being pushed at the trial that this was a new technology, they emphasised the use of this computer system to back that up, but no one in the media actually explained it was using the same low copy DNA that has been proven unreliable many times before and all Perlin has done is come up with a new way of jiggling the numbers. At the end of the day, if the sample is unreliable there is no safe way of generalising from ii or making safe conclusions based on it, no matter what way you jiggle the numbers. A bit like the tallymen at the elections looking at one constituency box and telling us who is going to win an election. It may be accurate but just as likely to be inaccurate.

These are the guys that shot down the LCDNA evidence in the Sean Hoey trial, interesting reading and links

http://www.theforensicinstitute.com/news/low-copy-number-dna-and-the-forensic-institute.html

After that trial the Caddy review gave new guidelines for LCDNA use in legal cases. LCDNA brought back to acceptable status in UK courts after that, like it or not. Certainly still has plenty of detractors, judge in this case didn't like the defense 'expert', no doubt will be a subject for appeal.

Ulick

To be honest I was certain Collie was going down when Hart allowed that evidence but was also pretty certain he'd get off on appeal. Especially because Hart convicted Paul McCaugherty last year after tape recordings of his "admission" during an MI6 sting operation went missing and he allowed 40 spooks to come into the court (anonymously) one after the other and say McCaugherty said such and such on the missing tapes. That was f**king scandalous and there was barely a word about it in the media. This was Hart's last trial before retirement and I suspect he knew if he convicted, Duffy would still walk on appeal, but I don't doubt he would have convicted if he thought he could have gotten away with it - his judgement hardly makes reference to the fact that the glove which is the only evidence that contains a full DNA profile of Duffy wasn't in the car when it was first found and inventoried. The first sworn testimony that someone saw it there only came three years later, 15 minutes before the trial started. Then there is police driver whose DNA was all over the inside of the car, despite his sworn testimony he never got into the car and then the 5 unknown DNA profiles inside the car - taking into consideration the peelers have swabbed half the country, who do they belong to? The whole thing stinks...

illdecide

Quote from: Ulick on January 21, 2012, 12:08:55 AM
To be honest I was certain Collie was going down when Hart allowed that evidence but was also pretty certain he'd get off on appeal. Especially because Hart convicted Paul McCaugherty last year after tape recordings of his "admission" during an MI6 sting operation went missing and he allowed 40 spooks to come into the court (anonymously) one after the other and say McCaugherty said such and such on the missing tapes. That was f**king scandalous and there was barely a word about it in the media. This was Hart's last trial before retirement and I suspect he knew if he convicted, Duffy would still walk on appeal, but I don't doubt he would have convicted if he thought he could have gotten away with it - his judgement hardly makes reference to the fact that the glove which is the only evidence that contains a full DNA profile of Duffy wasn't in the car when it was first found and inventoried. The first sworn testimony that someone saw it there only came three years later, 15 minutes before the trial started. Then there is police driver whose DNA was all over the inside of the car, despite his sworn testimony he never got into the car and then the 5 unknown DNA profiles inside the car - taking into consideration the peelers have swabbed half the country, who do they belong to? The whole thing stinks...

I rest my case you Honour ;)
I can swim a little but i can't fly an inch

JUst retired


fitzroyalty

Quote from: Ulick on January 20, 2012, 09:54:12 PM
Quote from: fitzroyalty on January 20, 2012, 09:07:58 PM
Aye right. Act with caution.

Rule of thumb when entering the Railway, or the Snakepit as they like to call it.

Was in it the other week and had a right oul time. You wouldn't get Buckfast for that price down here in the big smoke or the Cellar for that matter.
The women are predators though...

I don't understand this case, how does Shivers get found guilty but Duffy acquitted... Both have 'alledged' traces of DNA in the car. Regardless how those DNA traces got there, Duffy gets acquitted because his guilt wasn't proven beyond reasonable doubt or whatever, surely Shivers is the same?

Ulick

They said the match with Chivers DNA profile was found outside the car, which places him at the scene. He claims he gave the box of matches to someone else at a meeting previous to this. The person he gave the matches to also happens to be the chief suspect.

orangeman

Colin Duffy says 'DNA' planted in get-away car


Prominent republican Colin Duffy, who has been cleared of murdering two soldiers in Antrim, has said he believed his DNA had been planted in the getaway car.

On Friday, Mr Duffy, 44, from Lurgan, was acquitted of murdering Mark Quinsey, 23, and Patrick Azimkar, 21 at Massereene Barracks in March 2009.

His co-accused, Brian Shivers, 46, from Magherafelt was convicted.

Mr Duffy said he had "no involvement" in the attack.

He made the comments at a news conference on Saturday.

"Let me state quite categorically here that I had no involvement with what happened at Massereene - no involvement whatsoever - and that has been vindicated in the court," he said.

"There was no credible evidence to suggest otherwise."

On Friday, the judge said he was satisfied that Mr Duffy's DNA had been found on a latex glove tip inside the car and on a seat buckle, but, he said, the prosecution had failed to link the defendant to the murder plot.

Mr Duffy told the news conference he had "never been in that car".


Patrick Azimkar and Mark Quinsey were murdered in March 2009 "My position has been, from the word 'go', that my DNA, was in my opinion, planted there," he said.


Agent Orange

Quote from: Ulick on January 21, 2012, 03:10:07 PM
They said the match with Chivers DNA profile was found outside the car, which places him at the scene. He claims he gave the box of matches to someone else at a meeting previous to this. The person he gave the matches to also happens to be the chief suspect.

Can you say who the chief suspect is?