Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

A6 Rebooted

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • On 4 August 2023, Rob Harriman published 'Executed: But was James Hanratty innocent?'

    In 2002 the Court of Appeal, in London, proclaimed that James Hanratty’s guilt, in the infamous A6 Murder case, had been proven by the DNA…


    Harriman previously published 'Hanratty: The DNA travesty' in 2014. I wonder if there is lots of new material? It also claims to be the first to review the courts decision but haven't several been published since then? Leonard Miller, Paul Stickler etc.
    In 2002 the Court of Appeal, in London, proclaimed that James Hanratty’s guilt, in the infamous A6 Murder case, had been proven by the DNA evidence from the now disbanded Forensic Science Service; thereby ?nally, after 40 years of controversy, hoping to have put an end to the doubts in the case. However, this didn’t remove the inconvenient fact that tireless campaigners such as Paul Foot and Bob Wo?nden, had fully documented the copious evidence pointing to Hanratty’s innocence, which had persuaded the Criminal Cases Review Commission to bring the case back before this court. This book is the first to review this court’s worrying deliberations and subsequent events and will no doubt prove unpopular with our political and judicial authorities. As you will see the controversy remains far from over. There is no escaping that if the FSS evidence is correct the case for his innocence must be wrong, but which is the more likely? How had the court undertaken its duty to balance these con?icting narratives, when arriving at its damning verdict? Had it decided all the evidence of innocence was mistaken, or lies? Or had it just ignored it? Equally, how had it assessed the veracity of the FSS scienti?c evidence put before it? The answers, as this work details, are woeful and should be widely known, as they impact, not just on this tragic case, but on the way our courts are still treating forensic DNA evidence. Be warned, this is not a light read, but our authorities and anyone who practices law in this country should consider it carefully, as it has stark implications for our criminal justice system and those who ?nd themselves being judged by it.
    Last edited by djw; 08-13-2023, 04:02 AM.

    Comment


    • I cannot find any reviews of the book except this rather short one. I don't get the feeling there is much if any new material but will be happy to be proved wrong. Well spotted as the book was only published a week ago.

      Executed: But was James Hanratty Innocent?: A Damning Indictment of the DNA Evidence Used to Condemn Him
      by
      Robert Harriman
      17021657
      Tamara's review
      Jul 18, 2023
      it was amazing
      ** spoiler alert ** Thank you to Net Galley and the publisher for this arc. This book was well written and it made me angry with the court system. I firmly believe James Hanratty was railroaded and more than likely the so called DNA evidence was contaminated by improper handling. Unfortunately Britain's judicial system will never admit to this. In my opinion he was murdered by his on country.

      Comment


      • I've also just noticed new fiction by David J Cooper titled Hanratty - The Final r

        Comment


        • I've also just noticed new fiction by David J Cooper titled Hanratty - The Final Curtain

          Comment


          • Truth is stranger than fiction. Trouble is, in the case of Hanratty, we will never get to the truth. At least not in my lifetime.

            Comment


            • I've now finished Executed by Rob Harriman. Chapters are not numbered but ten or so out of twelve or so are about DNA testing. This includes what DNA profiles were found on exhibits, the cycles to amplify this, the composite profile produced for Hanratty, what a match means, what loci constitute a match, what the probability of matching to a different persons DNA is measured in Bayes odds and the way this is relayed in court by expert witnesses, the FSS, judges and juries. Its not clear if LCN test or SGM plus was used, if Hanratty's alleles match and what epithelial sample testing is. The particular LCN test is also questioned for reliability and error rate. The Liverpool alibi is sympathetically treated relying on the testimony of Mrs Dinwoodie and some others.

              Comment


              • Someone involved in forensics has posted on linkedin


                It is just over 20 years since the Forensic Science Service developed the Low Copy Number (LCN) DNA profiling method for application to retained exhibits in the James Hanratty case. The increased sensitivity of the LCN method meant that there was a greater chance of obtaining successful DNA profile result in which a low amount of DNA might be expected; however even though an LCN method was applied it did not implicitly follow that the DNA sample would contain a low template amount of DNA. LCN methodology was questioned during the 2007 Omagh bombing case. Concern was raised about scientific validation and sample integrity. Following the judgment, the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) in discussion with CPS, wrote to Chief Constables recommending that the police should operate an interim suspension on the use of LCN DNA analysis. Between 21/12/07 and 14/1/08 CPS carried out an internal review and concluded that LCN DNA analysis provided by the FSS should remain available as potentially admissible evidence. Just prior to the Omagh verdict the Forensic Science Regulator commissioned an expert review of "low template DNA analysis", including the LCN service offered by the FSS. The review, led by Professor Brian Caddy of Strathclyde University, began on 8/11/07 and delivered its report in April 2008. The Caddy Review concluded that there was no reason to believe that there was any inherent unreliability in the LCN DNA analysis process which had been validated by the FSS in accordance with its internal validation procedures. LCN methodology was applied to many high profile cases from many different countries: R v James Hanratty - samples from semen staining on knickers of female victim and from mucous staining on a handkerchief wrapped around gun matched the deceased remains of JH who was exhumed to obtain reference samples. Australia: R v Bradley Murdoch 2005 Australia - disappearance of Peter Falconio R v Bradley Edwards , Western Australia case of the Claremont Serial Killings Scotland: R v Angus Sinclair (World’s End murders). England: R v Ian Lowther murder of Mary Gregson) R v Tony Jasinskyj murder of Marion Croft Wales: Llandarcy murders, Joseph Kappen (first application of familial searching led to identification of the suspect) - exhumation of suspect led to refernce samples being obtained. R v Mark Hansom murder of Geraldine Palk Sweden: murder of Anna Lindh. Ireland: R v Noel Long murder of Nora Sheehan

                Comment


                • Hi djw,

                  I recently watched an engrossing 2023 tv drama and related documentary on the 1973 Llandarcy murders mentioned above, referred to as the Steeltown Murders. Joseph Kappen was eventually identified as the prime suspect from familial DNA evidence. His remains were exhumed in 2002, and a perfect DNA match was established to the killer's profile from the victims' clothing, proving his guilt beyond doubt.

                  This immediately made me think of the A6 case, when Hanratty's remains were found to match the DNA profile from the surviving victim's underwear and the hanky wrapped round the murder weapon. I did wonder if the same testing method was used in Kappen's case, and whether the usual objections in Hanratty's case still apply in 2023. If not, would this only leave the contamination and conspiracy arguments, which would appear to rely on a) DNA from Hanratty accidentally coming into direct contact with the knicker fragment, due to poor handling and storage conditions back in 1961, and b) the real killer - or an accomplice - having somehow obtained a used hanky from Hanratty [decades before there was any way to identify it forensically] to plant on a London bus with the gun?

                  Love,

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


                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by ansonman View Post

                    Well done in finding it. The very fact that the report remains under wraps says it all.
                    Further to this, the National Archives also hold a copy and I made a FOI request in 2023. This was refused and I requested an internal review which has just also come back refused.

                    I would like to share the response here.

                    Comment


                    • djw,

                      They might open it in 2060 along with the document relating to William Ewer's libel case against Times Newspapers.
                      Here is a copy from the National Archives site which confirms in 2020 the decision from 1973 to close the record for 86 years. Since you clearly know your way around these matters, why would such a precise date as 86 have been chosen? I realise the verdict of the A6 Case was in 1962 but that would not make a round 100 years either.

                      And what are the 'two exemptions' (apologies that the margin did not copy in my quote) listed as 'Health and Safety' or 'Personnel information where the applicant is a third party.' I assume these are circumstances that would permit the opening of the record before 2060, but who would constitute a 'third party?'

                      Closed For 86 years
                      2020
                      Health and Safety
                      Personal information where the applicant is a 3rd party
                      01 January 2060

                      Comment


                      • I think its been mentioned here before but although those directly involved in the case are all dead, records are being withheld due to distress it might cause to their surviving families.

                        However without knowing how long their families will survive, how do we know when the records will ever be released? Children of those involved very well might outlive any sleuths here who are interested. Saying that though, 2060 might be even longer. Wouldn't Gregstens children have to be centenarians by then? Would that be a good time to be subject to distress?

                        Really I would like to know if this is worth taking to the Information Commissioner in the opinion of those here.

                        Comment


                        • I doubt whether the Information Commissioner will take us any further forward. How about your MP? They seems to be tripping over themselves to help out constituents as the GE approaches.

                          Comment


                          • The concept of 'distress to surviving family members' seems reasonable at a first glance, but then surely no more than what was caused by the crime itself.

                            I have long suspected that there are skeletons in William Ewer's cupboard which impinge upon the security services. There was a well known left wing journalist from North London in the 1920s who shared Ewer's names. This was not the William Ewer we knew, just to be clear, but he led an interesting life. He started out as a Bolshevik supporter and ending up an anti-soviet informer for MI5.

                            Comment


                            • "Home Office officials are understood to have concluded that Hanratty was innocent. Michael Howard, the Home Secretary, is shortly expected to announce that he is to refer the case to the Court of Appeal, where the conviction is expected to be quashed." Independent 27/1/97.

                              Howard is the guy that I would like to share an evening with. He, as much as anyone knows what's in the file.

                              The Independent article concludes:

                              "But the combined weight of evidence, backed by the police inquiry, appears to have been enough for the authorities to concede finally that a grave miscarriage of justice took place". So why did Howard change his mind? Or did the journalists get it wrong?

                              Wouldn't mind betting than Mrs Howard knows a thing or two.

                              Comment


                              • Er, DNA, anyone??

                                The combined weight of evidence in 1997 can't compete with that.

                                Love,

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


                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X