Casebook: Jack the Ripper - Main
   

Introduction
Victims
Suspects
Witnesses
Ripper Letters
Police Officials
Official Documents
Press Reports
Victorian London
Message Boards
Ripper Media
Authors
Dissertations
Timelines
Games & Diversions
Photo Archive
Ripper Wiki
Casebook Examiner
Ripper Podcast
About the Casebook

Most Recent Posts:
Mary Jane Kelly: Was Mary Kelly a Ripper victim? - by Prosector 37 minutes ago.
Motive, Method and Madness: Poll: Organs/body parts removed or not? - by Trevor Marriott 53 minutes ago.
Motive, Method and Madness: Poll: Organs/body parts removed or not? - by El White Chap 2 hours ago.
General Police Discussion: Police: Incompetent to Mission Impossible - by Carol 2 hours ago.
Motive, Method and Madness: Poll: Organs/body parts removed or not? - by Trevor Marriott 2 hours ago.
Mary Jane Kelly: Was Mary Kelly a Ripper victim? - by Garry Wroe 3 hours ago.

Most Popular Threads:
General Suspect Discussion: Charles Lechmere interesting link - (16 posts)
General Discussion: PC Long, GSG & a Piece of Apron - (9 posts)
General Suspect Discussion: The "Suspects": Current Opinion - (6 posts)
Mary Jane Kelly: Finding more out about MJK - (5 posts)
Motive, Method and Madness: Poll: Organs/body parts removed or not? - (5 posts)
A6 Murders: A6 Rebooted - (4 posts)

Wiki Updates:
Joseph Lawende
Edit: Chris
Mar 9, 2014, 10:12 am
Online newspaper archives
Edit: Chris
Mar 6, 2014, 11:56 pm
Miscellaneous research resources
Edit: Chris
Feb 13, 2014, 9:28 am
Charles Cross
Edit: John Bennett
Sep 4, 2013, 8:20 pm
Donald Swanson
Edit: Chris
Dec 9, 2012, 3:40 pm

Most Recent Blogs:
Mike Covell: Mike’s Book Releases
March 17, 2014, 3:18 am.
Mike Covell: A Study in Red – The Secret Journal of Jack the Ripper
March 3, 2014, 3:42 am.
Mike Covell: Almost there….
January 24, 2014, 4:05 am.
Mike Covell: Jack the Ripper - Year in Review 2013
December 28, 2013, 7:31 am.
Mike Covell: Jack the Ripper At Last? - Review
December 9, 2013, 2:08 am.
Mike Covell: From Whitechapel to Whitefriargate
November 27, 2013, 4:15 am.

Go Back   Casebook Forums > Social Chat > Other Mysteries > A6 Murders

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1301  
Old 03-24-2012, 03:11 AM
Natalie Severn Natalie Severn is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: London
Posts: 4,504
Default

----got to admit Graham-excellent observations.
I think there was difficulty co-ordinating the investigation at first.The police in Slough did little about the cornfield all round-for example they found no witnesses who had seen the gunman- despite nationwide descriptions .Only the Cobbs and their immediate neighbour saw someone resembling the identikit of the man with the receding hairline -but they said this sighting was at 2pm in the afternoon of 22nd .
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1302  
Old 03-24-2012, 03:21 AM
Natalie Severn Natalie Severn is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: London
Posts: 4,504
Default

Hi Caz,
That isn't quite right about the LCN DNA identifying Hanratty's,V.S's and MG's.
Initially the defence took this up strongly asking why only Hanratty's DNA was found on the knicker fragment.
Problem is I am in Wales without books or anything -so this is difficult- but one of the persistent queries in 2002 as I recall from the appeal transcript,was the question of why only Hanratty's DNA was on it---and I dont think there was a clear answer---if there was it came late in the day and seemed rather curious.
AtB
Norma
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1303  
Old 03-27-2012, 03:14 PM
Premium Member
caz caz is offline
Assistant Commissioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 3,817
Default

Hi Nats,

The Appeal Judgement is quite clear about the three DNA profiles found on the knicker fragment: one matched DNA from Hanratty's remains and mucous from his hanky; one matched the victim's; the third was attributed to her lover.

The fragment was originally stained with two men's semen, the blood groups consistent with Hanratty and Gregsten.

I believe the reference to only Hanratty's DNA being found has been misinterpreted; it merely means that his was the only 'foreign' or 'suspect' profile, as both the others were innocently accounted for. In short, no profiles were found that could not be accounted for. Obviously the defence questioned this because they were fully expecting another man's profile to be there - the real rapist's - and if anyone else's DNA had accidentally contaminated the fragment, that would have been almost as good from their point of view.

It must have been profoundly disappointing to the defence when only Hanratty's DNA was found where it should never have been - on the victim's underwear.

Love,

Caz
X
__________________
"Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov



Last edited by caz : 03-27-2012 at 03:17 PM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1304  
Old 03-28-2012, 01:03 AM
Natalie Severn Natalie Severn is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: London
Posts: 4,504
Default

Hi Caz
I wonder have you ever seen pics of the type of sterile environment that is now insisted upon by the international forensic scientific community ie from crime scene to laboratory and inside the lab too where masks gloves head gear etc has to be worn to avoid contamination when using LCN DNA tests?LCN is now considered a magnet for contaminants.
Given hanratty's trousers and valerie's underwear were put out each day from the same boxes how can anyone not now see how easy during the committal alone ie before the exhibits went to the lab on dec 28th 1961 it would have been for transference to occur. Also how come the DNA of the nurses who removed valerie's underwear and the police who handled all these materials daily and often together -taking them to the lab. and from police station to the pathologists - how come their dna was never found on the cloth ?found?and btw they did not automatically and probably did not at all- wear gloves. In my book there is a Getty image of the exhibits clerk arriving at court with the duffle bag and a pile of other exhibits and he is BAREHANDED !!!!!so when he took out the hanky his dna would have remained on it ------Hanratty"s and later at the trial members of the jury would have been permitted to pass these exhibits round.so how come all this DNA which lcn DNA can pick up from almost nothing- how come it has all disappeared?
As for the wording of the appeal about whose dna is on the fragment of cloth and the hanky -it changes - in other words it is unclear why they refer solely to Hanratty"s.
No computer still writing this on my iPhone - not easy to see whole sentence so hope it's ok
Best
Norma x
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1305  
Old 03-28-2012, 09:05 AM
Limehouse Limehouse is offline
Chief Inspector
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Cambridgeshire, England.
Posts: 1,721
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by caz View Post
Hi Nats,

The Appeal Judgement is quite clear about the three DNA profiles found on the knicker fragment: one matched DNA from Hanratty's remains and mucous from his hanky; one matched the victim's; the third was attributed to her lover.

The fragment was originally stained with two men's semen, the blood groups consistent with Hanratty and Gregsten.

I believe the reference to only Hanratty's DNA being found has been misinterpreted; it merely means that his was the only 'foreign' or 'suspect' profile, as both the others were innocently accounted for. In short, no profiles were found that could not be accounted for. Obviously the defence questioned this because they were fully expecting another man's profile to be there - the real rapist's - and if anyone else's DNA had accidentally contaminated the fragment, that would have been almost as good from their point of view.

It must have been profoundly disappointing to the defence when only Hanratty's DNA was found where it should never have been - on the victim's underwear.

Love,

Caz
X
Hi Caz,

It is not surprising that the DNA on the hanky matched the DNA from Hanratty's remains since Hanratty never denied the hanky was his. However, there is no evidence whatsoever to place the hanky at the scene of the crime.

At the risk of repeating myself, the rapist's DNA was apprarently found on her underwear, even though she removed her knickers prior to the rape. Now this is not impossible, as there would possibly have been some leaking (sorry to be so indelicate) when she replaced her knickers. However, given that she removed her underwear, there must surely have been some forensic evidence deposited within the car. None was found. As Graham has pointed out, this is hard to explain and as Graham also explained, it is surprising the defence did not make more of this.

Now, it is fair to speculate that the examination of the car was none too thorough. How can we therefore rely on examinations of clothing under very poor conditions?
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1306  
Old 03-28-2012, 01:51 PM
Graham Graham is offline
Superintendent
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Midlands
Posts: 2,199
Default

Hi all,

Quote:
However, given that she removed her underwear, there must surely have been some forensic evidence deposited within the car. None was found. As Graham has pointed out, this is hard to explain and as Graham also explained, it is surprising the defence did not make more of this.

Now, it is fair to speculate that the examination of the car was none too thorough. How can we therefore rely on examinations of clothing under very poor conditions?
It wasn't just body fluids that weren't found in the car (assuming that they were looked for), but there was apprently NO forensics of any kind apart from Gregsten's blood and the fingerprints of people who had recently used the car legitimately. The thing is, if Hanratty cannot be connected to the car due to lack of forensics, then neither can enyone else, Alphon included. I honestly cannot believe that nothing was found unless, as Julie says, the examination of the car wasn't very thorough. But I'm sure that, for example, the sticky-tape technique of removing clothing fibre from surfaces was in existence in 1961. I always felt there was something rather odd about this aspect of the case.

I've avoided getting into the DNA debate on this thread, but if DNA samples can be lifted from bandages of 5000 year-old mummified remains then surely there shouldn't be much of a problem with relatively new clothing.

Graham
__________________
We are suffering from a plethora of surmise, conjecture and hypothesis. - Sherlock Holmes, The Adventure Of Silver Blaze
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1307  
Old 04-02-2012, 01:30 AM
Graham Graham is offline
Superintendent
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Midlands
Posts: 2,199
Default Tattoos

In light of something I've recently read, has anyone any information with regard to James Hanratty having one or more tattoos?

Thanks,

Graham
__________________
We are suffering from a plethora of surmise, conjecture and hypothesis. - Sherlock Holmes, The Adventure Of Silver Blaze
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1308  
Old 04-03-2012, 05:40 PM
Premium Member
caz caz is offline
Assistant Commissioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 3,817
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Natalie Severn View Post
LCN is now considered a magnet for contaminants.
Quote:
Also how come the DNA of the nurses who removed valerie's underwear and the police who handled all these materials daily and often together -taking them to the lab. and from police station to the pathologists - how come their dna was never found on the cloth ?
Quote:
...the exhibits clerk arriving at court with the duffle bag and a pile of other exhibits and he is BAREHANDED !!!!!so when he took out the hanky his dna would have remained on it ------Hanratty"s and later at the trial members of the jury would have been permitted to pass these exhibits round.so how come all this DNA which lcn DNA can pick up from almost nothing- how come it has all disappeared?
Well Nats, the fact remains that none of these potential contaminants left a single discernible trace to be picked up forty years on from either the hanky or knicker fragment. I realise this is inconvenient when you are arguing that Hanratty's DNA was one such contaminant to reach the knicker fragment via secondary transfer, because it would be the sole surviving example in that case. This makes it so much more likely that only the strongest traces survived: the bodily fluids of victim, lover and rapist on the knickers, and Hanratty's nasal mucous on his hanky.

If you can't accept the absence of any minor contaminants, it's somewhat ironic that you have no trouble believing that the rapist's semen 'all disappeared', despite it having stained the knicker fragment directly and been blood typed at the time.

Love,

Caz
X
__________________
"Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1309  
Old 04-03-2012, 06:03 PM
Premium Member
caz caz is offline
Assistant Commissioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 3,817
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Limehouse View Post
At the risk of repeating myself, the rapist's DNA was apprarently found on her underwear, even though she removed her knickers prior to the rape. Now this is not impossible, as there would possibly have been some leaking (sorry to be so indelicate) when she replaced her knickers. However, given that she removed her underwear, there must surely have been some forensic evidence deposited within the car. None was found. As Graham has pointed out, this is hard to explain and as Graham also explained, it is surprising the defence did not make more of this.

Now, it is fair to speculate that the examination of the car was none too thorough. How can we therefore rely on examinations of clothing under very poor conditions?
Hi Limehouse,

I have never really understood this argument. The same would have applied when Valerie had sex with Gregsten in the car. She would presumably have taken her knickers off for that too, then put them back on as quickly as possible to contain the leaking. Leaking into her knickers would be pretty much inevitable without tissues to hand, while leaking onto the car seat was only ever a possibility if she couldn't get her undies back on quickly enough. (Don't ask how I know all this, but I have a good memory for some things. )

We know that two types of semen were found and blood typed during examination of the garment afterwards, so obviously the conditions were not too poor to obtain what mattered at the time - evidence of the rape plus the offender's blood group.

Everything they found and didn't find back then matches up with everything they found and didn't find forty years later. That has to count for something.

Love,

Caz
X
__________________
"Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1310  
Old 04-03-2012, 06:38 PM
Natalie Severn Natalie Severn is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: London
Posts: 4,504
Default

Hi Caz,
The fragment of cloth which was so minuscule you could barely see it with the naked eye was all that remained of the knickers.
The fragment could- it's true - easily have missed other DNA samples it's just very very odd that none is on either hanky or knicker fragment.
Caz,you appear to keep ignoring the fact that now, in 2012, LCN DNA testing is only considered reliable if
A) the storage history is one of total sterility from crime scene to laboratory testing. Neither hanky or knickers fragment would even be considered to be used for a true DNA test reading today such is the high risk of contaminants.yet we know they were handled by Dr Nickolls on 23rd August, taken from cardboard boxes by exhibits clarks with no gloves on at the committal in November 1961 and then again taken by police car to Dr Grant on 28/29 December of same year 1961 in
latter case along with Hanratty"s trousers ie tested in very same lab as semen was taken from Hanratty"s trousers on 28 December and on 29 December Valerie's knickers were tested and her slips and the knicker piece was cut off and then blow me down the semen was made into a wash and kept and 42 years later found in
a police lab drawer same drawer as V's knicker fragment was found and same drawer as where a vial was found - or rather a broken vial was found- it's rubber bung alongside glass fragment and curved glass. So whatever was in that vial could easily have transferred contaminants to the
knicker fragment-not just transferred but could have saturated the tiny fragment of knicker cloth
with Hanratty's DNA from it's spillage thereby masking all the other persons DNA that must have
been on it...
Must go - again sorry if post is a bit difficult to read my computer is damaged so am posting this
on my iPhone and it's not easy
AtB
Norma xx
You know about this Caz....about Bruce Budowles and others discoveries about the lack of scientific acceptability of LCN DNA testing it's susceptibility to cross contamination etc etc

Last edited by Natalie Severn : 04-03-2012 at 06:48 PM. Reason: Omission
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 08:41 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.