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:
Hutchinson, George: Hutchinsons statement.... - by Bridewell 3 minutes ago.
Hutchinson, George: Hutchinsons statement.... - by andy1867 27 minutes ago.
Hutchinson, George: Hutchinsons statement.... - by Bridewell 28 minutes ago.
Hutchinson, George: Hutchinsons statement.... - by Bridewell 36 minutes ago.
Witnesses: Finding Israel Schwartz - by Robert 1 hour and 10 minutes ago.
General Discussion: "Red Terror" - by Herlock Sholmes 2 hours ago.

Most Popular Threads:
Hutchinson, George: Hutchinsons statement.... - (65 posts)
Letters and Communications: An experiment - (17 posts)
Mary Jane Kelly: Was Joe Barnett´s alibi accepted lightly? - (6 posts)
Non-Fiction: Ripper Confidential: Fanny Mortimer - (5 posts)
General Police Discussion: PC Thain's beat - (3 posts)
General Discussion: "Red Terror" - (2 posts)

Wiki Updates:
Robert Sagar
Edit: Chris
May 9, 2015, 12:32 am
Online newspaper archives
Edit: Chris
Nov 26, 2014, 10:25 am
Joseph Lawende
Edit: Chris
Mar 9, 2014, 10:12 am
Miscellaneous research resources
Edit: Chris
Feb 13, 2014, 9:28 am
Charles Cross
Edit: John Bennett
Sep 4, 2013, 8:20 pm

Most Recent Blogs:
Mike Covell: A DECADE IN THE MAKING.
February 19, 2016, 11:12 am.
Chris George: RipperCon in Baltimore, April 8-10, 2016
February 10, 2016, 2:55 pm.
Mike Covell: Hull Prison Visit
October 10, 2015, 8:04 am.
Mike Covell: NEW ADVENTURES IN RESEARCH
August 9, 2015, 3:10 am.
Mike Covell: UPDDATES FOR THE PAST 11 MONTHS
November 14, 2014, 10:02 am.
Mike Covell: Mike’s Book Releases
March 17, 2014, 3:18 am.

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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1  
Old 02-02-2011, 05:50 PM
Limehouse Limehouse is offline
Chief Inspector
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Cambridgeshire, England.
Posts: 1,872
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RonIpstone View Post
Hello Tony,

I must make it clear that I do not believe all people from Bedfordshire to be dimwits, only a high proportion and this was reflected in the intellectual composition of the jury.

Ron
I assume you carried out relevant tests to determine the intellectual composition of the jury? You were quite critical of people you think are not qualified to comment on the scientific aspects of this case so could we know how you know so much about the intellectual capabilities of a jury that sat in a courtroom almost 50 years ago?
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 02-02-2011, 05:57 PM
Limehouse Limehouse is offline
Chief Inspector
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Cambridgeshire, England.
Posts: 1,872
Default

Derrick wrote:

The actual results are unknown to anyone here so Victor must support his opinion with solid evidence as source tissue is unknowable from DNA testing.

Vic wrote:

Paragraph 120 from the judgment:
Dr Evison [the Defence expert] seems to accept that in the case of the knicker fragment the contaminant would have to be semen.


Whether he was the defence expert or not - how could he 'seem to accept' something that is not actually able to be established according to current scientific knowledge?

Was that line actually in the judgement and if so is Dr Evison being misunderstood or misquoted? Surely a scientist would not 'seem to accept' something?
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 02-03-2011, 10:50 AM
Victor Victor is offline
Chief Inspector
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 1,501
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Limehouse View Post
how could he 'seem to accept' something that is not actually able to be established according to current scientific knowledge?
Hi Julie,

You are wrong. It is possible to discriminate sperm heads from other DNA sources.

Secondly, presumably he refused to state he accepts the proposition - otherwise he'd be fired just like Lincoln was, so much for an unbiased defence - but he could not honestly and legitimately deny it.

Quote:
Was that line actually in the judgement and if so is Dr Evison being misunderstood or misquoted? Surely a scientist would not 'seem to accept' something?
Yes the line was in paragraph 120 of the judgment, and I gave the link to it too so you could see for yourself. Here it is again -> http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2002/1141.html

I don't think he was either misunderstood nor misquoted - the judgment is the 3 judges opinion of what he said, so the above is a plausible explanation but not the only possibility.

KR,
Vic.
__________________
Truth is female, since truth is beauty rather than handsomeness; this [...] would certainly explain the saying that a lie could run around the world before Truth has got its, correction, her boots on, since she would have to chose which pair - the idea that any woman in a position to choose would have just one pair of boots being beyond rational belief.
Unseen Academicals - Terry Pratchett.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 02-07-2011, 05:07 PM
Victor Victor is offline
Chief Inspector
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 1,501
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Limehouse View Post
Whether he [Dr Evison] was the defence expert or not - how could he 'seem to accept' something that is not actually able to be established according to current scientific knowledge?
Hi Julie,

The proof that sperm can be detected seperately from other sources of DNA is most of the way down this article -> http://www.scientific.org/tutorials/...ley/riley.html

KR,
Vic.
__________________
Truth is female, since truth is beauty rather than handsomeness; this [...] would certainly explain the saying that a lie could run around the world before Truth has got its, correction, her boots on, since she would have to chose which pair - the idea that any woman in a position to choose would have just one pair of boots being beyond rational belief.
Unseen Academicals - Terry Pratchett.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 02-07-2011, 05:20 PM
babybird67 babybird67 is offline
Inspector
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Wales
Posts: 1,146
Default yes Vic

that is really what clinches the DNA for me...

1/ that it was found in a distribution typical of intercourse having taken place;

and

2/ that not only would contamination have had to occur, for which there is absolutely no evidence, but that an equally if not more improbable act of total eradication of the 'real' rapist's DNA would also have had to occur.

As someone much more au fait with the science than me, can you tell me if this is impossible according to the laws of physics or just extremely, exceptionally, completely unlikely.
__________________
babybird

There is only one happiness in life—to love and be loved.

George Sand
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 02-07-2011, 06:12 PM
Derrick Derrick is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 565
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Victor View Post
Hi Julie,

The proof that sperm can be detected seperately from other sources of DNA is most of the way down this article -> http://www.scientific.org/tutorials/...ley/riley.html

KR,
Vic.
Hi Vic

From the section you mentioned in the article you linked to above is the following;

Quote:
The description of this procedure so far is quite ideal. It works pretty much as described for fresh samples. Even with fresh samples however, some of the non-sperm DNA will be trapped in the sperm pellet. This can be a major problem if the amount of sperm is very low or if the samples are aged and degraded. Often male cells, most likely immature sperm or white cells may end up in the supernatant, variously called the “female” fraction or “non-sperm” fraction.
That is why Budowle, Krane et al keep banging on about the inability to infer the tissue source of DNA when using LCN type techniques.

Derrick
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 02-08-2011, 01:03 PM
Victor Victor is offline
Chief Inspector
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 1,501
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Derrick View Post
That is why Budowle, Krane et al keep banging on about the inability to infer the tissue source of DNA when using LCN type techniques.
Hi Derrick,

From paragraph 56 of http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2009/2698.html :-
Some stains of biological fluids are detectable by visual examination or presumptive tests (blood, semen or saliva), but some are not – sweat, skin cells or vaginal secretions. It is relatively straight forward to determine the precise nature of the material if it is particulate or if it is a stain of a biological material that can be detected by visual examination or by a presumptive test.

KR,
Vic.
__________________
Truth is female, since truth is beauty rather than handsomeness; this [...] would certainly explain the saying that a lie could run around the world before Truth has got its, correction, her boots on, since she would have to chose which pair - the idea that any woman in a position to choose would have just one pair of boots being beyond rational belief.
Unseen Academicals - Terry Pratchett.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 02-07-2011, 06:21 PM
Limehouse Limehouse is offline
Chief Inspector
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Cambridgeshire, England.
Posts: 1,872
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Victor View Post
Hi Julie,

The proof that sperm can be detected seperately from other sources of DNA is most of the way down this article -> http://www.scientific.org/tutorials/...ley/riley.html

KR,
Vic.
Thank you Vic - but the article does very little to convince me that the method of testing on the Hanratty/Storie items was reliable. In fact - the article does much to describe how many problems can be caused by testing degraded or particularly small amounts of DNA.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 02-07-2011, 06:44 PM
Premium Member
caz caz is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 5,006
Default

Hi Limehouse,

But I imagine the problems that can be caused would relate more to results that are clearly ambiguous, or less than conclusive, or difficult to interpret with total accuracy, or where the rest of the case evidence, or the original conviction, points in another direction.

When they looked at those results in the context of the rape victim's testimony and stated certainty, when confronted with the man who couldn't prove he was elsewhere and went on to be convicted, there was little to be called into question. It all fitted. Had anything not fitted, Hanratty might still not have been proved innocent, but we can be sure the appeal would have had a very different ending.

Love,

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


Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 02-08-2011, 06:59 AM
Limehouse Limehouse is offline
Chief Inspector
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Cambridgeshire, England.
Posts: 1,872
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by caz View Post
Hi Limehouse,

But I imagine the problems that can be caused would relate more to results that are clearly ambiguous, or less than conclusive, or difficult to interpret with total accuracy, or where the rest of the case evidence, or the original conviction, points in another direction.

When they looked at those results in the context of the rape victim's testimony and stated certainty, when confronted with the man who couldn't prove he was elsewhere and went on to be convicted, there was little to be called into question. It all fitted. Had anything not fitted, Hanratty might still not have been proved innocent, but we can be sure the appeal would have had a very different ending.

Love,

Caz
X
Hi Caz - nice to see you back posting.

Good points. For me - the DNA evidence is troublesome scientifically because we cannjot know how much handling the garments were subjected to before they were stored away and we do not know how much contact they had with each other. Additionally - the amount of deposit the scientists were able to extract was very minimal and the quality was poor. That meant that LCN testing had to be carried out and it is far less realiable than other more straightforward methods.

It is true that DNA is always considered in context with other evidence. That's a problem for me too. It is the quality of the other evidence that worried me to start with. Valerie's testimony is very important and I would not question it so easily if I could be sure that Acott was not leading her strongly. But there are many other aspects to the evidence that do bother me and I am always going to have grave doubts about Hanratty's guilt.
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 09:28 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.