A6 Murder DNA evidence

[JamesDean]

Hi Victor

5) How many more times must I post this on here for your sorry benefit.
READ THIS BEFORE YOU GO ANY FURTHER WITH THE DNA DEBATE

http://www.theforensicinstitute.com/public_html/PressLCN.htm

Regards
Reg

Hi Reg,

He ignores anything that doesn't support his personal opinion and cherry picks the odd phrase here and there that he can quote out of context,

Regards
James

[Victor]

Hi Victor
In answer to your reply (#25) to my post #23.

Hi Reg.

1) You gave no rebuttal to the possiblilty of contamination bar rambling on about skin moisturiser etc which just adds nothing to the debate for instance along the lines that perhaps JH was a metrosexual kind of a guy! Know what I mean Vic?

My reply was to your comments about DNA transfer and I was essentially agreeing with you! Most DNA transfer is from skin flaking off you, so how dry your skin is will have a massive effect on how much DNA you shed - to infer anything about JH from that is bizarre! JH was supposed to be someone who took care of his appearance (dunno who said that!) so maybe he was a metrosexual - who knows.

Anyway as far as I can see it's utterly irrelevant becasue we're talking about semen and vaginal fluids on a piece of knickers.

2) This is the dogs danglies of the whole matter and I will post more on this later. No Vic it is not a delaying tactic. It's my grandsons birthday and we are going to have a party, remember them do you..fun and such things.

OK, I await your reply on this bit! I'll just ignore the stuff about your grandsons birthday other than - I hope you have a good time!

3) I didn't say that they didn't find 3. I was just concentrating on JH's. This does not prove that the contamination is implausible. As JamesDean has said; it has not been shown exactly where the rapists deposits where on VS's knickers.

Yes, but it's the presence of the other 2 makes the possibility of contamination implausible.

And the judgement states quite clearly where the rapists semen was and the fragment that they cut out.

4) Are you sure that you realise what you put here? I think that you have made yourself look a bit of a berk. Also how do you know I haven't taken independent expert verification of the LCN technique? You presume too much Moriarty.

Where's the problem with this statement? "True a "decent scientist" would want independant verification if at all possible, but where that isn't possible they'd form the best opinion from the evidence available - and of course the LCN process is done twice, so there is verification it's just not independant."
It stands as far as I can see.

And then you mix it up with suggestions of you having got someone else to look at the technique - missing the point that we were discussing the "DNA findings" ie the conclusions reached by the expert witness from the raw data. Have you seen the raw data? I haven't, just conclusions based on it expressed in the judgement.

I'm presuming nothing.

5) How many more times must I post this on here for your sorry benefit.
READ THIS BEFORE YOU GO ANY FURTHER WITH THE DNA DEBATE

http://www.theforensicinstitute.com/...l/PressLCN.htm

I've read it again just now. Scientists arguing - good that's how progress is made. It's mainly a criticism of the way the report has been handled and the lack of a standard methodology rather than saying "LCN doesn't work"

slanging matches over personal traits doesn't bother me much so I will just ignore your comparison of my good wholesome self to the wretched Whitaker. So just leave it there eh tiger!

What - go read it again! I was agreeing with you! I actually said "the impression I have of him is along the same lines as yourself" and I meant that my opinion of him is similar to your opinion of him - ie Whitaker is arrogant and patronising. I DID NOT COMPARE YOU TO HIM!

6) What on earth would I be delaying and what for. You don't think I know what I am talking about so I must be delaying things so I can run down to the library and do some more research? You can't kid a kidder son!

Erm...no idea, don't care! My point was that both sides of the fence would have presented their arguments, and to effectively say "one side may not have expressed themselves properly" is to deny that the other side may not have done either. The defence team made their arguments about contamination, and the prosecution side countered it in such a way as to convince the judges that the possibility of contamination was fanciful. What I understand your comments to mean is that you're reserving the right to critise the defence team for being useless if the full transcript gets released.

7) Quoted and not used. A mistake on your part, but do have a look into the John Taft case. It is a very possible miscarriage of justice. If miscarriages of justice interest you at all.

Regards
Reg

Wasn't a mistake, I left it in so as to include your full post without editting it.

I'll take a look at the Taft case when I get chance - is Caz's summary about right? I'm about to start reading "Killing for Company" as true crime does interest me (rather than possible miscarriages), which is why I got here in the first place - this being a JtR website.

Hi Victor
In answer to your reply (#25) to my post #23.

1) You gave no rebuttal to the possiblilty of contamination bar rambling on about skin moisturiser etc which just adds nothing to the debate for instance along the lines that perhaps JH was a metrosexual kind of a guy! Know what I mean Vic?

2) This is the dogs danglies of the whole matter and I will post more on this later. No Vic it is not a delaying tactic. It's my grandsons birthday and we are going to have a party, remember them do you..fun and such things.

3) I didn't say that they didn't find 3. I was just concentrating on JH's. This does not prove that the contamination is implausible. As JamesDean has said; it has not been shown exactly where the rapists deposits where on VS's knickers.

4) Are you sure that you realise what you put here? I think that you have made yourself look a bit of a berk. Also how do you know I haven't taken independent expert verification of the LCN technique? You presume too much Moriarty.

5) How many more times must I post this on here for your sorry benefit.
READ THIS BEFORE YOU GO ANY FURTHER WITH THE DNA DEBATE

http://www.theforensicinstitute.com/public_html/PressLCN.htm

slanging matches over personal traits doesn't bother me much so I will just ignore your comparison of my good wholesome self to the wretched Whitaker. So just leave it there eh tiger!

6) What on earth would I be delaying and what for. You don't think I know what I am talking about so I must be delaying things so I can run down to the library and do some more research? You can't kid a kidder son!

7) Quoted and not used. A mistake on your part, but do have a look into the John Taft case. It is a very possible miscarriage of justice. If miscarriages of justice interest you at all.

Regards
Reg

[Victor]

Your recent reply to jimarylyn ...

Now that IS a constructive post!

Compared to "JESUS wept"?

[Victor]

Another example of you twisting my words. I didn't use the word 'liar', you inferred that yourself.

Erm.."You have simply jumped from one side of the fence to the other. That you claim to have changed your mind is a persuasive tool you use to show how reasonable your own opinions are."...no you didn't use the word liar but the highlighted words imply that.

I mentioned before how you like to take things out of context

Touche...Do you think your opinion of my posts is any different to my opinion of yours? We disagree, and to leave an argument by just saying "Your twisting my words" without indicating how and why is disingenious.

In what way is it a conspiracy theory to speculate on whether the tests on the fragment produced the correct conclusion? By mentioning Elvis and the moon landings you are implying that challenging the DNA findings is similarly outrageous.

Nope, wrong end of the stick. The conspiracy theory is suggesting that the scientists or police have deliberately falsified or intentionally misreported the results of the tests whether as a result of sloppy procedures or not. The analogy to the moon landing is that there exists video evidence of the event but people are challenging that this video was falsified, compared to we have the results of the DNA tests (or a conclusion based upon those results) and poeple are challenging that the results have been falsified, compared to Elvis funeral and people are challenging that this was staged. Conspiracy is a bunch of people deliberately misrepresenting (or manufacturing) evidence.

Some of your replies did twist my words because, as I have mentioned before, you take things out of context. Generally your replies showed a lack of understanding of the point I was making. I don't object to you quoting from the judgment because it is the baseline from which all arguments regarding the DNA begin. But sometimes quotes from the judgment are presented by you and others as some kind of proof. That the appeal judges concluded contamination to be unlikely, and the DNA result proved beyond all doubt JH's guilt, is simply their opinion; it is not proof of anything. What I am doing is validating and challenging the assumptions made in the judgment.

The bit in bold is true - the appeal judges concluded (with expert advisors on both sides) that the possibility of contamination is "fanciful". To say that it is their opinion is essentially true, but because it is their opinion they have the weight of the law behind them and legally they confirmed JH's guilt.

I didn't give up, as you put it, I said I had neither the time or inclination to respond. You had missed the point in several of my posts and your attitude was very dismissive. Why should I bother; it doesn't matter to me if you believe the DNA proves Hanratty's guilt. You can think what you like. I don't mind; but you mind that I believe that there is still some doubt; and as Justice Gorman says, "If you have 'any' doubt you have reasonable doubt".

I don't want to get into a sematic debate, but what exactly is the difference between giving up and having neither the time or inclination to respond?

I do not mind if you believe there is some doubt. I do not have significant doubts, in that I'm satisified that other than "conspiracy theories" every known avenue of examination of the evidence has been looked at and there are no reasons to doubt the DNA evidence.

Obviously if you have doubts you should vocalise them so I can look at them and evaluate them for myself, otherwise we're wandering into the realm of inclination, "hunches", faith, and these cannot be logically argued against because they are not logical.

I have already answered the 'you gave in' accusation. I posted a reply to that in case someone should interpret it as implying that I had in some way agreed with your opinions ... which I most certainly have not.

We disagree - great. But unless there's a logical, tangible point on which we can debate then that's where it has to end.

Please do continue to defend your opinions. It's only by looking at both sides of the argument that we can each form our own opinion or have it validated. Just don't expect me to agree with you solely because you 'say' you have shot to pieces any argument that is contrary to yours. It's not good enough for you to simply say that you are qualified to understand the science and you have examined the evidence and there is now no argument for any conclusion other than that in the judgment.

Have a nice day!

Again, it is my belief that I gave reasonable, logical, plausible explanations for the routes of contamination, etc., that you proposed. Furthermore I quoted from the judgement in order to do that because I felt that in that way I wasn't misrepresenting the data with my opinions.

You have a great day too!

[JamesDean]

Your recent reply to jimarylyn ...

Ah I get it, you can't respond in a reasonable, constructive way so just post nonsensical critical gibberish.

Now that IS a constructive post!

[JamesDean]

Erm... is there a point to that? Oh yes, to call me a liar - great that's nice and productive.

Another example of you twisting my words. I didn't use the word 'liar', you inferred that yourself.

It isn't a quote see I said "comments to the effect of" like:-
"Was any one of us there to scrutinise the procedures and to verify that there could have been no mixup occurring in the lab? "
"Can you guarantee that no mixup occurred in the lab?"

I mentioned before how you like to take things out of context.

Conspiracy theories - of course noone can guarantee that the DNA test procedures were flawless, or that Elvis is dead, or the moon-landings weren't faked.

In what way is it a conspiracy theory to speculate on whether the tests on the fragment produced the correct conclusion? By mentioning Elvis and the moon landings you are implying that challenging the DNA findings is similarly outrageous.

You have offered some genuine possibilities for where contamination may have occurred on the other thread, so I looked into them and replied, but apparently my replies were twisting your words, or just direct quotes from the judgement and you gave up.

Some of your replies did twist my words because, as I have mentioned before, you take things out of context. Generally your replies showed a lack of understanding of the point I was making. I don't object to you quoting from the judgment because it is the baseline from which all arguments regarding the DNA begin. But sometimes quotes from the judgment are presented by you and others as some kind of proof. That the appeal judges concluded contamination to be unlikely, and the DNA result proved beyond all doubt JH's guilt, is simply their opinion; it is not proof of anything. What I am doing is validating and challenging the assumptions made in the judgment.

I didn't give up, as you put it, I said I had neither the time or inclination to respond. You had missed the point in several of my posts and your attitude was very dismissive. Why should I bother; it doesn't matter to me if you believe the DNA proves Hanratty's guilt. You can think what you like. I don't mind; but you mind that I believe that there is still some doubt; and as Justice Gorman says, "If you have 'any' doubt you have reasonable doubt".

My opinions carry no more or less weight than anyone elses, and I'm prepared to continue defending them. It's you that gave in remember!

I have already answered the 'you gave in' accusation. I posted a reply to that in case someone should interpret it as implying that I had in some way agreed with your opinions ... which I most certainly have not.

Please do continue to defend your opinions. It's only by looking at both sides of the argument that we can each form our own opinion or have it validated. Just don't expect me to agree with you solely because you 'say' you have shot to pieces any argument that is contrary to yours. It's not good enough for you to simply say that you are qualified to understand the science and you have examined the evidence and there is now no argument for any conclusion other than that in the judgment.

Have a nice day!

[caz]

Hi Reg,

Many thanks for your summary. I see that Victor has beaten me to it and responded far more competently than I could. But since I have prepared a response I will post it anyway, for what it's worth:

1) Agreed in principle, but you still need to show how the specific results could reasonably have been obtained (ie Hanratty's DNA match and no trace of any other potential suspect) through contamination of the evidence.

2) Irrelevant. Science is always going to be a work in progress. Not being able to produce conclusive results in 1995 doesn't affect what has become achievable since.

3) How do you know that the technology, expertise and experience wasn't in place by 2000 for Dr Whitaker to find the DNA match to JH and state that the distribution was 'indicative of heterosexual intercourse'? Are you claiming that he was the only one claiming this was possible, and that everyone else stood by, either accepting it without question or tutting impotently about 'invalid' techniques and how nobody could tell anything about 'typical distributions from an action and the timeframes involved'?

4) Sceptical is fine. Even suspecting that the DNA evidence in this case leaves something to be desired is fine. What's not fine (and I'm not applying this to you) is rejecting the result, not on the basis of anything tangibly 'iffy' about it, but because it goes against one's previous strong convictions that someone other than Hanratty must have been the murderer. Once again, would the 'possible contamination' drum have been beaten at all if Alphon's DNA had shown up instead? That's what people should be asking themselves. Take away the DNA evidence and forget it if you must. But you will still not have the result you wanted or expected.

5) See 3)

6) A reasonable point, except that considering all the previous fuss I can hardly believe it would have died down as much as it has if JH's legal team could have raised any remaining concerns about contamination etc above the vanishingly remote level, with the help of all these reputable scientists with genuine misgivings about validity.

7) Thanks, I will if I haven't already.

Sorry for getting carried away with the Taft case. I just wanted to point out, in case anyone might be misled, that there was nothing wrong with the DNA evidence itself. Taft admitted it was his semen on the victim's clothing. It was the sinister interpretation put on why and how it got there that was unsafe.

Love,

Caz
X

[Victor]

JESUS wept.

Ah I get it, you can't respond in a reasonable, constructive way so just post nonsensical critical gibberish.

[Victor]

Hi Caz
I have posted all my doubts previously in one way or another before but for your benefit I will summarize.

1) The possibility of contamination of the evidence during the original forensic investigations is very real. Mr Howard stated that strict guidelines where always followed when handling evidence but those guidelines would surely be in no way sufficient to protect against any form of DNA transfer. Even today no conclusive studies have been carried out as to the extent that tansfer of DNA can persist even though we know it happens every second of every day to most people, about 10% of the population is said to shed much less DNA than the rest. The respondents agreed that contamination could have taken place among the various exhibits.

Your DNA is in every cell in your body, how much you "shed" depends upon masses of factors such as how often you shower, how moisturised your skin is naturally, whether you moisturise, etc. and of course whether you exfoliate. The same person doesn't "shed" the same amount constantly, they vary second by second.

2) When the original DNA tests where conducted in 1995 they proved inconclusive. This is notable considering the alleged large amount of bodily fluid on the fragment. DNA testing at that time would need a stain about the size of a 50 pence piece to obtain a profile.

There was not enough material to provide a positive match.

3) Using LCN in 2000 Dr Whitaker found a match to JH that he alleges was as certain as makes no difference. He went on to state that the distribution of DNA was indicative of heterosexual intercourse The statement by Whitaker is, I believe, misleading. The reason for that is that all DNA tests involve mixtures of DNA from the evidence. How could he tell anything about typical distributions from an action and the timeframes involved. All he would be able to tell was if someones DNA was not present and after having taking into consideration the distinct possibility of allelic drop-in due to contamination.

Sorry Reg, they found 3 profiles - JH, MG and VS - but no unidentified profile from "the rapist" which makes the possibility of contamination implausible.

4) As I stated previosly I was shocked by the DNA findings, but remained sceptical, as any decent scientist should.

Hmm... not so sure. True a "decent scientist" would want independant verification if at all possible, but where that isn't possible they'd form the best opinion from the evidence available - and of course the LCN process is done twice, so there is verification it's just not independant.

5) Recently the LCN technique has been shown to be an invalid technique. No consensus exists as to the results obtained from one laboratory to the next with regard to replicate samples. Whitaker parades this technique as something it is not and in, as some people have described, a very arrogant and patronising fashion.

Sorry Reg, that's just not true. In Jan 2008 after a review by the CPS LCN was permitted as evidence in the UK, and is also admissible in Netherlands and New Zealand.

The technique is a modificfation of the accepted process for DNA testing but is done over 34 cycles compared to 28 for the standardised DNA technique (known as SGM Plus).

I can't comment on the behaviour of Dr Whitaker, but the impression I have of him is along the same lines as yourself. Of course there's no connection between the validity of his work and his personal traits.

6) As to the matter of JH's legal team, they raised their concerns of contamination. The degree of the voracity of this is not apparent from the ruling document. One would have to have access to the transcript of the 10 day long appeal itself.

There is evidence that the defence team made an argument to the Appeal Court, and it's also true that we do not know "the degree of the voracity" of them or the prosecution team. This seems like a delaying argument.

7) See my post #2063 on the main thread about my doubts.

Where did I say that the John Taft case had any bearing on the Hanratty case. I just think that it is another interesting case involving DNA with a different twist. I think you got a bit carried away there.

Regards
Reg

[jimarilyn]

So are you going to respond?

JESUS wept.

Hi Caz
I have posted all my doubts previously in one way or another before but for your benefit I will summarize.

1) The possibility of contamination of the evidence during the original forensic investigations is very real. Mr Howard stated that strict guidelines where always followed when handling evidence but those guidelines would surely be in no way sufficient to protect against any form of DNA transfer. Even today no conclusive studies have been carried out as to the extent that tansfer of DNA can persist even though we know it happens every second of every day to most people, about 10% of the population is said to shed much less DNA than the rest. The respondents agreed that contamination could have taken place among the various exhibits.

2) When the original DNA tests where conducted in 1995 they proved inconclusive. This is notable considering the alleged large amount of bodily fluid on the fragment. DNA testing at that time would need a stain about the size of a 50 pence piece to obtain a profile.

3) Using LCN in 2000 Dr Whitaker found a match to JH that he alleges was as certain as makes no difference. He went on to state that the distribution of DNA was indicative of heterosexual intercourse The statement by Whitaker is, I believe, misleading. The reason for that is that all DNA tests involve mixtures of DNA from the evidence. How could he tell anything about typical distributions from an action and the timeframes involved. All he would be able to tell was if someones DNA was not present and after having taking into consideration the distinct possibility of allelic drop-in due to contamination.

4) As I stated previosly I was shocked by the DNA findings, but remained sceptical, as any decent scientist should.

5) Recently the LCN technique has been shown to be an invalid technique. No consensus exists as to the results obtained from one laboratory to the next with regard to replicate samples. Whitaker parades this technique as something it is not and in, as some people have described, a very arrogant and patronising fashion.

6) As to the matter of JH's legal team, they raised their concerns of contamination. The degree of the voracity of this is not apparent from the ruling document. One would have to have access to the transcript of the 10 day long appeal itself.

7) See my post #2063 on the main thread about my doubts.


Where did I say that the John Taft case had any bearing on the Hanratty case. I just think that it is another interesting case involving DNA with a different twist. I think you got a bit carried away there.

Regards
Reg

[Victor]

Smack on Caz. An excellent post, you've hit the nail firmly on the head. Methinks someone was trying to bring to an end further open discussion on the A6 murder. A lot of people (both for and against Hanratty) are simply bored and switched off by the way individual (and slanted) interpretation of an official "report" (re. DNA evidence) has been allowed to take over an intriguing and fascinating case.

[caz]

Hi Reg,

I am very relieved to learn that you are prepared to judge each case on its own merits and therefore are not one of those who subscribe to the view that all DNA analysis is ‘inherently flawed’ and should not therefore be admissible as evidence, which I’m sure would delight every offender past, present and future. But as I said before it would have the opposite effect on any poor sod who was wrongly convicted in the past, if DNA evidence that indicated his innocence had to be similarly ruled inadmissible.

I’m particularly glad that you consider DNA to be ‘the most scientifically sound forensic evidence that could be put before a jury’ and that many people have been ‘correctly convicted with the aid of this science’. It makes a refreshing change to the impression given by other posters that DNA evidence is not worth tuppence. I am still wondering whether they would be saying that if Alphon’s DNA had been detected on those knickers instead of Hanratty’s.

Could I ask what you have seen regarding the DNA evidence in this case that ‘doesn't make sense’ to you? You point to Dr Whitaker’s involvement as your ‘very good reason for doubt’ over the Hanratty DNA. Not feeling able to trust an individual’s work is all very well, but how does that translate into the evidence itself not making sense? I totally agree about Meadows and how disastrous it was that people just presumed he knew what he was talking about and could be relied upon to apply and interpret cot death statistics correctly.

But I’m struggling to see what ‘just does not add up’ about Hanratty’s DNA being detected on a piece of crime scene evidence and no trace of any other potential suspect. If no reasonable alternative interpretation can be put on this result by anyone else involved - including Hanratty’s own legal team - how does Whitaker’s involvement affect this state of affairs, regardless of how questionable you find his work generally?

What is the link between your doubts about this man’s expertise and the evidence not making sense to you? There is a world of difference between the original efforts to identify the gunman being shaky, contradictory or generally unsatisfying, and the wrong man being convicted. The right man can be found guilty for the wrong reasons, insufficient reason or even faulty evidence. But what you seem to be saying is that the non-forensic evidence indicates that they got the wrong man, therefore it doesn’t ‘add up’ unless the DNA evidence was wrong too. Enter Whitaker, who takes on the crucial role of providing you with the necessary doubt to satisfy your equation.

But all the doubts in the world still wouldn’t show that Hanratty was innocent. The rapist’s traces need never have been on that knicker fragment and Hanratty could still have been guilty. Only if the rapist’s DNA was present and was misidentified as Hanratty’s (and the mistake not picked up by his legal team) would it ‘add up’ to another man’s guilt.

So is there any evidence that for you personally rules out Hanratty from being the gunman? If so, what is it and what makes it sounder than the DNA evidence? If not, then it’s only your refusal to allow for the possibility of the DNA evidence being sound that doesn’t really add up from where I’m sitting. It still appears to boil down to wanting the original conviction to be declared unsafe on the basis that DNA evidence is inherently unsafe.

I looked up the John Taft case briefly. But I’m not sure the comparison helps your case, since it is obvious that if his semen could have got onto the victim’s clothing as a result of an earlier act of consensual sex (which was how Taft himself explained its presence) then the doubts are not about the soundness of the technique that identified his DNA, but how this evidence was interpreted in order to secure a conviction. Since there is no room for doubt that the man whose semen was found on VS’s knickers had raped and shot her after murdering MG, the DNA identification (assuming it was as sound as it was in the Taft case) was only open to the one interpretation.

Love,

Caz
X

[Victor]

You have simply jumped from one side of the fence to the other. That you claim to have changed your mind is a persuasive tool you use to show how reasonable your own opinions are.

Erm... is there a point to that? Oh yes, to call me a liar - great that's nice and productive.

When did I post that?

It isn't a quote see I said "comments to the effect of" like:-
"Was any one of us there to scrutinise the procedures and to verify that there could have been no mixup occurring in the lab? "
"Can you guarantee that no mixup occurred in the lab?"

Conspiracy theories - of course noone can guarantee that the DNA test procedures were flawless, or that Elvis is dead, or the moon-landings weren't faked.

You have offered some genuine possibilities for where contamination may have occurred on the other thread, so I looked into them and replied, but apparently my replies were twisting your words, or just direct quotes from the judgement and you gave up.

I haven't read any of the books so my mind is untainted. I make my own mind up. You have made your own mind up but you seem to be under the impression that your opinion carries more weight than anyone elses and so, to quote a johnl-ism, 'the DNA evidence has been put to bed'. It hasn't!

My opinions carry no more or less weight than anyone elses, and I'm prepared to continue defending them. It's you that gave in remember!