tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4909488748140942076.post7958954221587672029..comments2024-03-20T18:05:50.971+13:00Comments on NOSTALGIA-NZ: Times of Lundy deaths unclear: expertNostalgia-NZhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17048029433699816931noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4909488748140942076.post-80214544164336375882015-03-20T19:42:09.504+13:002015-03-20T19:42:09.504+13:00An additional comment from Lee:
"If you goog...An additional comment from Lee:<br /><br />"If you google, "is dna the same in all cells of your body", the only 1st page sources of disagreement to the answer "yes", are 2012 studies by Yale University and a 2009 page by Science Daily.<br />That 'yes' answer on all the other pages usually is qualified by "except for mutations" which, I guess, could occur in any cell(s), and the answers aren't including the halved DNA volume gametes.<br />I think stem cells also have the same DNA as brain cells or other cells, but they're undifferentiated, and capable of becoming specific tissue types.<br />So, except for very recent research, I don't see how scientists could know that sequences of the bases(adenine, thymine, cytosine, and guanine) were from any specific tissue type, unless they had some whole cell tissue samples.<br />"<br />Nostalgia-NZhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17048029433699816931noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4909488748140942076.post-2331701917186855162015-03-19T21:00:56.331+13:002015-03-19T21:00:56.331+13:00I may not have this quiet right but it is linked t...I may not have this quiet right but it is linked to the ability of stem cells to regenerate while somatic cells don't have that ability?<br /><br />Anyway, I can see a similar characteristic here as with the Bain case. The Crown either, without awareness, or deliberately, offering conflicting evidence. That to me is self defeating and really the job of the defence, who had 1 witness yesterday agreeing that the spot on Lundy's shirt may have been stem cell material and in apparent agreement about the poor quality of the sample, along with the fact that it was not necessarily human. It's important that expert witnesses don't disagree on everything and that particular witness for the defence advanced the reasonable doubt which favours Lundy heavily.<br /><br />That reasonable doubt took another boost when the long awaited unfortunate who held onto a story about Lundy confessing to him for 12 years only to reveal that Lundy 'confessed' while awaiting an appeal on a trial that had yet to take place. An 'important' witness showing once again why this trial shouldn't be taking place.Nostalgia-NZhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17048029433699816931noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4909488748140942076.post-3652267866713264892015-03-19T11:52:03.151+13:002015-03-19T11:52:03.151+13:00Yes, I'm fine, thanks.
But I don't underst...Yes, I'm fine, thanks.<br />But I don't understand how brain cell DNA could be distinguishable from other somatic cell DNA. Has Lundy's defense asked that question? Leehttp://superfly.co.nznoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4909488748140942076.post-40491556063140351912015-03-18T11:48:18.190+13:002015-03-18T11:48:18.190+13:00Yes, that's what we've been told. It's...Yes, that's what we've been told. It's all about 'forget what you were told last time.. we have another story.' Maarten Kleintjes is having a bad run about being a computer expert, this is his second major trial where he's got critical timings wrong. And you guessed it, both times the mistakes 'favour' his paymasters. To avoid all this confusion maybe the Judge should ask the Crown to make a short list of anything they got right, avoiding the mundane, like the year, Lundy's full name, weight etc.<br /><br />You doing ok Lee?Nostalgia-NZhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17048029433699816931noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4909488748140942076.post-5374149853528401732015-03-18T08:54:24.489+13:002015-03-18T08:54:24.489+13:00Hasn't evidence regarding the shutdown time of...Hasn't evidence regarding the shutdown time of Christine's computer also changed between trials?<br />The time, I've read was 10:52 pm.<br />And 1st trial evidence was that the time definitely had been manipulated, because Christine was alleged to have predeceased that time.<br />In the retrial, the time is definitely honest, with no computer manipulation, because Christine is alleged to have been alive at 11 pm.<br />Is that what we've been told?<br /><br />Leehttp://superfly.co.nznoreply@blogger.com