Australia - Toyah Cordingley, 24, body found on beach, 22 October 2018 #3

[JLZ]

I get the point about transfer being possible, but the problem here is the expert was clear there were no signs of a mixed sample.

Saying the DNA ‘might have come from several men’ doesn’t line up with the actual profile of 26/27 and then 27/27 markers matching Singh as a very strong hit.

Y‑DNA can technically come from different men, but only if they’re in the same paternal line or if there’s a clear mixture in the sample (which there wasn’t). The stick/dog scenario is speculative without evidence that Singh handled it. And under cross‑examination, the expert confirmed it couldn’t have come from Marco.

Stronger DNA under nails usually comes from direct physical contact and object transfer tends to leave weaker, mixed traces. We have to weigh our thoughts up against the strength of the lab tested match and the expert testimony.

I disagree in several respects.

Yes, the NZ expert Patel said that she found no signs of the DNA (from the fingernail) being mixed. That's not the same as saying that the DNA showed signs of being unmixed. I don't mean that her observation about the lack of signal is of no relevance or value, but there's no information about how probable/improbable it would be that a sample of mixed DNA should show no technical signal of being mixed. In fact I doubt that she'd be repeatedly qualifying her answer with "if you assume they're from one individual", "if you assume those results originated from one male" if the sample provided its own proof that the Y-chromosome material came from only one person.

I feel like we're not on the same page about the Y-DNA and different men. What I think Patel means, is that if the sample is from one man, and there are say 26 matches, that's 26 out of 27 which is a high score. But if the sample comes from 2 men, then perhaps--I'm making up these numbers--that's 20 out of 27 from one, 12 out of 27 from another, with an overlap of 6 from both. So Singh's Y-DNA would not be a particularly good match for that of either of the two contributors, yet it would appear to match the sample. I don't know if it could work like that, I'm just trying to understand why the expert says what she does.

I do think there is DNA evidence that both Singh and Toyah handled the stick.

Forensic scientist Angelina Keller told the court it was 3.7 billion times more likely than not that Mr Singh had contributed DNA to a two-person mixture found on a stick at Ms Cordingley's burial site.
"Up to approximately 1 in 3.7 billion people could give the same [likelihood ratio] as that, or greater," Ms Keller said.
Ms Cordingley was more than 100 billion times more likely than not to have been the other contributor to that mixture.

DNA samples found near Toyah Cordingley burial site scrutinised

The former nurse accused of the 2018 murder of Toyah Cordingley was 3.7 billion times more likely than not to have contributed to a DNA sample found on a stick where she was buried, his trial has heard.

www.abc.net.au

Stronger DNA under nails usually comes from direct physical contact and object transfer tends to leave weaker, mixed traces. We have to weigh our thoughts up against the strength of the lab tested match and the expert testimony.

I just want to say again Patel's evidence was not that the fingernail DNA came from under the nails. She said she didn't know where it had been located on the nail. I don't know where the "under the nail" allegation is coming from. Perhaps there's another expert who collected the biological material who gave evidence about that.

 

[Rocket333]

I disagree in several respects.

Yes, the NZ expert Patel said that she found no signs of the DNA (from the fingernail) being mixed. That's not the same as saying that the DNA showed signs of being unmixed. I don't mean that her observation about the lack of signal is of no relevance or value, but there's no information about how probable/improbable it would be that a sample of mixed DNA should show no technical signal of being mixed. In fact I doubt that she'd be repeatedly qualifying her answer with "if you assume they're from one individual", "if you assume those results originated from one male" if the sample provided its own proof that the Y-chromosome material came from only one person.

I feel like we're not on the same page about the Y-DNA and different men. What I think Patel means, is that if the sample is from one man, and there are say 26 matches, that's 26 out of 27 which is a high score. But if the sample comes from 2 men, then perhaps--I'm making up these numbers--that's 20 out of 27 from one, 12 out of 27 from another, with an overlap of 6 from both. So Singh's Y-DNA would not be a particularly good match for that of either of the two contributors, yet it would appear to match the sample. I don't know if it could work like that, I'm just trying to understand why the expert says what she does.

I do think there is DNA evidence that both Singh and Toyah handled the stick.

Forensic scientist Angelina Keller told the court it was 3.7 billion times more likely than not that Mr Singh had contributed DNA to a two-person mixture found on a stick at Ms Cordingley's burial site.
"Up to approximately 1 in 3.7 billion people could give the same [likelihood ratio] as that, or greater," Ms Keller said.
Ms Cordingley was more than 100 billion times more likely than not to have been the other contributor to that mixture.

DNA samples found near Toyah Cordingley burial site scrutinised

The former nurse accused of the 2018 murder of Toyah Cordingley was 3.7 billion times more likely than not to have contributed to a DNA sample found on a stick where she was buried, his trial has heard.

www.abc.net.au

I just want to say again Patel's evidence was not that the fingernail DNA came from under the nails. She said she didn't know where it had been located on the nail. I don't know where the "under the nail" allegation is coming from. Perhaps there's another expert who collected the biological material who gave evidence about that.

The “under the nail” phrasing is possibly my shorthand, as I can’t now recall where it came from. I think the official phrasing in court and media has been “from a fingernail” or “in a fingernail sample”.

I agree that Patel’s nail evidence was cautious and conditional. Keller’s stick evidence was overwhelming with 3.7 billion for Singh and 100 billion for Toyah, so the DNA case is very strong where it matters.

The bottom line is that the stick DNA is proof Singh and Toyah both handled the same object which was found at the burial site. This DNA does only show contact, and not timing.

The jurors are now faced with weighing gaps vs anchors; such as no weapon, conditional and circumstantial links vs quantified stick DNA, Singh’s behaviour & flight, and car‑phone alignment. I truly hope they lean on the anchor evidence and then reinforce it with the circumstantial behaviour so the case clears the threshold.

 

[JLZ]

The “under the nail” phrasing is possibly my shorthand, as I can’t now recall where it came from. I think the official phrasing in court and media has been “from a fingernail” or “in a fingernail sample”.

I agree that Patel’s nail evidence was cautious and conditional. Keller’s stick evidence was overwhelming with 3.7 billion for Singh and 100 billion for Toyah, so the DNA case is very strong where it matters.

The bottom line is that the stick DNA is proof Singh and Toyah both handled the same object which was found at the burial site. This DNA only shows contact, and not timing.

The jurors are now faced with weighing gaps vs anchors; such as no weapon, conditional and circumstantial links vs quantified stick DNA, Singh’s behaviour & flight, and car‑phone alignment. I truly hope they lean on the anchor evidence and then reinforce it with the circumstantial behaviour so the case clears the threshold.

He had the opportunity. He had to have been there at the time of the killing. In addition to the car evidence, he said he saw the murder and that's why he ran. If he didn't witness the murder, he has no explanation for leaving the country other than that he killed Toyah himself.

 

[BreakingNews]

Maybe Toyah was forced to tie up Indie.
I just want Justice for Toyah and her family!

 

[Rocket333]

Maybe Toyah was forced to tie up Indie.
I just want Justice for Toyah and her family!

I just really doubt it, as the dog was tied too tightly. Toyah was buried thirty metres away from Indie, with no signs of blood or struggle between them. I think Singh restrained Indie to contain her, and Toyah attempted to free her. If Singh’s DNA was on the lead it was obviously minimal and overshadowed by that of the family. It’s possible Singh tied Indie, then brandished a knife, causing Toyah to back away and either brace herself or attempt escape. For all we know, Indie may have been the intended target, and Toyah ended up copping it instead.

There was a report from 28 November 2022 (just days after he was arrested) about Singh allegedly getting angry when Indie barked at him.

“Singh, a nurse, had travelled to the beach that day from his home in Innisfail after a fight with his wife, he told Indian police in an interview, according to multiple local news outlets. He said he was carrying a kitchen knife and some fruit.
It’s alleged he fatally stabbed 24-year-old Cordingley after an argument between the pair sparked by her dog barking at him, reports say. Singh had become “angered” by the dog barking and allegedly “stabbed her multiple times”, Indian Express reported, citing investigators. He then buried the body in the sand and tied the dog to a tree,” NDTV reported.”

I wonder where that story came from and what happened to it.

It’d also be interesting to know what Singh thinks about dogs in general, and whether he actually likes them or not, or is afraid of them.

My opinion.

 

[sapphire blue]

He had the opportunity. He had to have been there at the time of the killing. In addition to the car evidence, he said he saw the murder and that's why he ran. If he didn't witness the murder, he has no explanation for leaving the country other than that he killed Toyah himself.

If he merely witnessed the murder why did he leave the country?

 

[TootsieFootsie]

Maybe he forced Toyah to tie the dog tighter and tighter at knife point, by saying if she didn't, he would kill her.
By her I mean Toyah. Maybe he also threated to kill Indie.

Seems possible to me that he was scared of Indie trying to defend Toyah against him.