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

[Deleted member 293238]

Came to this case late as I hadn't been following it up until now, but having read back through the threads here I have to admit I would have done no different than the Jury, there is too much circumstantial evidence pointing away from Singh to send him down for this with nothing concrete pointing to him as the killer. Can't see how they can re-prosecute this without first investigating all the angles.

 

[bfew]

On the final day, Forensic Science Queensland senior scientist Rhys Parry told the court that the DNA of two people — Ms Cordingley and an unknown person — was found on the young woman's fingernail clippings.

Mr Parry told defence barrister Angus Edwards KC that Mr Singh was "excluded" as a contributor to that DNA sample.

Posting the Forensic Science QLD lab fingernail clippings DNA testing results, without also posting the subsequent fingernail clippings DNA testing in New Zealand (trial evidence on Tuesday 11th March, 2025, and reported on in the Cairns Post trial blog, and in the Cairns post newspaper the next day) is rectified with the below.

The NZ lab did different types of DNA tests (MINI-STR tests) than were done (and able to be done) in the QLD lab (Y-STR). MINI-STR DNA tests are used for analysing very degraded DNA.

The Toyah Cordingley NZ Institute of Environmental Science and Research Limited
fingernail clipping MINI-STR DNA tests results resulted in a match with the accused.
Reported as (trial evidence by Forensic Scientist, Jayshree Patel)
- 310 times more likely to be the accused, than a person in the general population.
- twice tested with a 27/27 match in one test and a 26/27 match in another test.

 

[Tricia]

Did you know supporting DNASolves.com with a subscription or donation helps solve crime and keeps Websleuths free for everyone? If you enjoy Websleuths, along with the fact no more insufferable ads, we ask that you become a monthly subscriber to DNASolves.com. If you can't make a monthly donation, please pick a case that needs funding and donate once. We know not everyone can donate. So if you could please get the word out about DNASolves.com through your social media or by simply emailing your friends, we would really appreciate it.
If you have any questions please CLICK HERE!
Thank you,
Tricia

 

[BreakingNews]

Posting the Forensic Science QLD lab fingernail clippings DNA testing results, without also posting the subsequent fingernail clippings DNA testing in New Zealand (trial evidence on Tuesday 11th March, 2025, and reported on in the Cairns Post trial blog, and in the Cairns post newspaper the next day) is rectified with the below.

The NZ lab did different types of DNA tests (MINI-STR tests) than were done (and able to be done) in the QLD lab (Y-STR). MINI-STR DNA tests are used for analysing very degraded DNA.

The Toyah Cordingley NZ Institute of Environmental Science and Research Limited
fingernail clipping MINI-STR DNA tests results resulted in a match with the accused.
Reported as (trial evidence by Forensic Scientist, Jayshree Patel)
- 310 times more likely to be the accused, than a person in the general population.
- twice tested with a 27/27 match in one test and a 26/27 match in another test.

Thankyou bfew, there has been inconsistent reporting over this issue. 310 times more likely to be R.S. than anyone else. That says a lot.

 

[bfew]

310 times more likely to be R.S. than anyone else. That says a lot.

I don't think we should assume that the reported 310 times more likely to be the accused, than a person "in the general population" is the same as saying
'310 times more likely to be R.S. than anyone else.'

Thus I would not be drawing any conclusion from this without seeing the transcript of exactly that was said in court regarding this, and the methodology using to arrive at exactly whatever the wording was of whatever was presented in court, and the parallel written scientific evidence on this, to doubly make sure that it was not ambiguous, misleading or open to being misinterpreted.

I'd have thought that if the DNA was a match to Singh, that the 310 times more likely XYZ figure, would be expressed in something like the millions like some of the other DNA evidence in this case.

 

[JLZ]

I don't think we should assume that the reported 310 times more likely to be the accused, than a person "in the general population" is the same as saying
'310 times more likely to be R.S. than anyone else.'

Thus I would not be drawing any conclusion from this without seeing the transcript of exactly that was said in court regarding this, and the methodology using to arrive at exactly whatever the wording was of whatever was presented in court, and the parallel written scientific evidence on this, to doubly make sure that it was not ambiguous, misleading or open to being misinterpreted.

I'd have thought that if the DNA was a match to Singh, that the 310 times more likely XYZ figure, would be expressed in something like the millions like some of the other DNA evidence in this case.

Adding to this, I would have a question about what "general population" is the reference. Is it the population of Queensland, north Queensland, Australia, the world? This is especially relevant where the accused is, on the face of it, genetically fairly different from much of the population of the local area: most of north Queenslanders presumably aren't of Indian descent.

 

[musicaljoke]

I don't think we should assume that the reported 310 times more likely to be the accused, than a person "in the general population" is the same as saying
'310 times more likely to be R.S. than anyone else.'

Thus I would not be drawing any conclusion from this without seeing the transcript of exactly that was said in court regarding this, and the methodology using to arrive at exactly whatever the wording was of whatever was presented in court, and the parallel written scientific evidence on this, to doubly make sure that it was not ambiguous, misleading or open to being misinterpreted.

I'd have thought that if the DNA was a match to Singh, that the 310 times more likely XYZ figure, would be expressed in something like the millions like some of the other DNA evidence in this case.

There may be two different things that are getting confused:

One is that the DNA found belongs to accused. That may have been proven as it was a few million times more likely to be his DNA than anyone else in the world. The DNA is established as belonging to the accused.

The second is that the DNA found under the nails was 310 times more likely to belong to the killer than to anyone else in the general population. This is a lower number because DNA found under the nails might also belong to someone in the general population such as a co worker, someone at the gym, a family member, someone on the public transit, etc. Not all DNA found under the nails will belong to the killer. But in this case, it is found to be 310 times more likely belonging to the killer than to another person with whom she may have been in contact.

 

[JLZ]

The second is that the DNA found under the nails was 310 times more likely to belong to the killer than to anyone else in the general population. This is a lower number because DNA found under the nails might also belong to someone in the general population such as a co worker, someone at the gym, a family member, someone on the public transit, etc. Not all DNA found under the nails will belong to the killer. But in this case, it is found to be 310 times more likely belonging to the killer than to another person with whom she may have been in contact.

(snipped & BBM) I'm not sure about the bolded. Usually the comparison is the likelihood of the DNA belonging to the accused as against the likelihood of it belonging to a randomly selected member of the sample population. The latter concept is very different from belonging to "anyone else in the general population" as you expressed it. For an analogy, you're comparing him either to the class average or to the class dunce.

 

[JLZ]

One is that the DNA found belongs to accused. That may have been proven as it was a few million times more likely to be his DNA than anyone else in the world. The DNA is established as belonging to the accused.

Can I clarify, are you claiming as a fact that evidence was given that some of the DNA found with Toyah did certainly belong to the accused?

 

[TootsieFootsie]

All I can say is Not Happy Jan...

 

[musicaljoke]

Can I clarify, are you claiming as a fact that evidence was given that some of the DNA found with Toyah did certainly belong to the accused?

"Mr Singh was 3.7 billion times more likely than not to have contributed to the DNA taken from part of the stick — a profile two or three people in the world would statistically be expected to fit, Mr Parry told the court."

"The court heard a DNA sample taken from the top of Ms Cordingley's left hand had contributions from two people — Ms Cordingley, and one another.

"The minor contribution was 340 times more likely to have come from Mr McCrea and 26 times more likely to have come from Mr Singh than a random member of the population."

DNA at Toyah Cordingley's burial site 3.7b times more likely to be accused's than another's, court hears

The man accused of murdering 24-year-old Cairns woman Toyah Cordingley likely contributed to DNA on a stick found at her burial site, but not on the lead of her dog which was found tied tightly to a tree nearby.

www.abc.net.au

 

[BreakingNews]

"Mr Singh was 3.7 billion times more likely than not to have contributed to the DNA taken from part of the stick — a profile two or three people in the world would statistically be expected to fit, Mr Parry told the court."

"The court heard a DNA sample taken from the top of Ms Cordingley's left hand had contributions from two people — Ms Cordingley, and one another.

"The minor contribution was 340 times more likely to have come from Mr McCrea and 26 times more likely to have come from Mr Singh than a random member of the population."

DNA at Toyah Cordingley's burial site 3.7b times more likely to be accused's than another's, court hears

The man accused of murdering 24-year-old Cairns woman Toyah Cordingley likely contributed to DNA on a stick found at her burial site, but not on the lead of her dog which was found tied tightly to a tree nearby.

www.abc.net.au

I believe that all tested DnD needs to be presented in an understandable way and evidence from the expert witnesses who did the testing from both Australia and New Zealand. Spreadsheet would do it. And who was tested?

"Mr Singh was 3.7 billion times more likely than not to have contributed to the DNA taken from part of the stick — a profile two or three people in the world would statistically be expected to fit, Mr Parry told the court."

"The court heard a DNA sample taken from the top of Ms Cordingley's left hand had contributions from two people — Ms Cordingley, and one another.

"The minor contribution was 340 times more likely to have come from Mr McCrea and 26 times more likely to have come from Mr Singh than a random member of the population."

DNA at Toyah Cordingley's burial site 3.7b times more likely to be accused's than another's, court hears

The man accused of murdering 24-year-old Cairns woman Toyah Cordingley likely contributed to DNA on a stick found at her burial site, but not on the lead of her dog which was found tied tightly to a tree nearby.

www.abc.net.au

A spreadsheet might help clarify what DNA was tested, and who was it tested against. Both NZ and Australian testers could be witnesses.
I can't even make links about the DNA as there are too many conflicting reports in the msm. Unless someone has the court transcript, I find it had to accept any truth. The 'stick' with RS DNA in Toyah's grave has been referred to as just a stick, but also her selfie stick. Her selfie stick was also reported as being found on the sand with her hat. Confused and concerned as to what is the truth. MOO.

 

[BreakingNews]

Can I clarify, are you claiming as a fact that evidence was given that some of the DNA found with Toyah did certainly belong to the accused?

Anyone know how to obtain a court transcript?

 

[JLZ]

Anyone know how to obtain a court transcript?

I've looked it up how to do it before. It's expensive; you specify the parts of the transcript you want and then pay by the page. I don't know whether this one would be purchasable at present because of sub judice.

 

[Marg944]

I rang the transcript service of Cairns Supreme Court. They are not able to say whether any case is available or not. You must apply and then they will tell you if it is available. They did explain that even if it was a mistrial, the fact that the matter was heard in the Supreme Court, there is a recording of it.

The cost for a transcript is expensive, first 8 pages is $103.20, and $12.75 per page after that. You need to nominate which part of the trial you want a transcript of, eg: evidence from the DNA expert from NZ.



The link for the transcript request is:-

Transcripts and recordings

How to request copies of transcripts and recordings of court proceedings, and the associated fees

www.courts.qld.gov.au

I wanted to find out if the transcript may appear on Caselaw, but they referred me to the Supreme Court Library to find out if it will appear on Caselaw. I specifically wanted to know if a mistrial does appear there…. But they could not tell me. So I will ring the Library shortly.

 

[Marg944]

I rang the Cairns Supreme Court Library and, as I already was kinda pretty sure of, they do not publish mistrials.

 

[SLouTh]

The court heard a DNA sample taken from the top of Ms Cordingley's left hand had contributions from two people — Ms Cordingley, and one another.

"The minor contribution was 340 times more likely to have come from Mr McCrea and 26 times more likely to have come from Mr Singh than a random member of the population."

BBM

IMO this information would have contributed to the “reasonable doubt” in a major way…..

I think most persons would have expected a DNA match from Singh under Toyah’s fingernails if she fought back against her attacker, as has been suggested.

With the hung jury it is obvious that the defence has played a good hand in creating reasonable doubt…… delivering a devastating blow to Toyah’s family and friends…

If you add up the following points, no exact match on the DNA, no blood on clothes or in his vehicle, no weapon found, another car unaccounted for etc .. etc the defence was able to create reasonable doubt in the jury….. (I would love to know how the votes actually went …. JMO)

I know the other information presented by the defence suggests guilt….. and until the trial I think we all thought this may be a slam dunk case for the prosecution …

I would also like to know who is paying for the defence??? And if the government reward of $1M is contributing to that???? (Did a relative claim that reward, and now the money is being used for the defence??? ) Or is legal aid paying for 2 barristers??

All IMO

 

[JLZ]

BBM

IMO this information would have contributed to the “reasonable doubt” in a major way…..

I think most persons would have expected a DNA match from Singh under Toyah’s fingernails if she fought back against her attacker, as has been suggested.

With the hung jury it is obvious that the defence has played a good hand in creating reasonable doubt…… delivering a devastating blow to Toyah’s family and friends…

If you add up the following points, no exact match on the DNA, no blood on clothes or in his vehicle, no weapon found, another car unaccounted for etc .. etc the defence was able to create reasonable doubt in the jury….. (I would love to know how the votes actually went …. JMO)

I know the other information presented by the defence suggests guilt….. and until the trial I think we all thought this may be a slam dunk case for the prosecution …

I would also like to know who is paying for the defence??? And if the government reward of $1M is contributing to that???? (Did a relative claim that reward, and now the money is being used for the defence??? ) Or is legal aid paying for 2 barristers??

All IMO

Musicaljoke, whom you quote, is talking about DNA found on Toyah's left hand. However,

Mr Singh's DNA corresponded with the whole profile of a sample from Ms Cordingley's right fingernails, forensic scientist Jayshree Patel told the court.

Jury hears covert recording of Toyah Cordingley's accused killer

A jury has heard an undercover recording of the man accused of a Queensland woman's violent beachside murder, in which he says he witnessed the "killers" and ran for his life.

www.abc.net.au

 

[SLouTh]

Musicaljoke, whom you quote, is talking about DNA found on Toyah's left hand. However,

Mr Singh's DNA corresponded with the whole profile of a sample from Ms Cordingley's right fingernails, forensic scientist Jayshree Patel told the court.

Jury hears covert recording of Toyah Cordingley's accused killer

A jury has heard an undercover recording of the man accused of a Queensland woman's violent beachside murder, in which he says he witnessed the "killers" and ran for his life.

www.abc.net.au

Thanks, somehow I had missed that part ….. as that is what I was expecting to come out at the trial …… why wasn’t the prosecution shouting this from the rooftops??? Especially in summing up???


Is a DNA “profile” match the same as ,an exact DNA match???


From your article above…

A sample taken from Ms Cordingley's right fingernails matched the profile of Mr Singh, the court heard.

Snip

The tests looked at 27 genetic markers and compared the DNA profiles from the samples to those of Mr Singh and Ms Cordingley's boyfriend Mr Heidenreich.

 

[Marg944]