A6 Murder DNA evidence

[JamesDean]

I've read the evidence and I have changed my opinion, therefore by definition it isn't dogmatic.

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.

Utter rubbish! Of course you can make any points you like - and you in particular have done - but silly comments to the effect of "scientists (and police) are all dodgy" are ridiculous.

When did I post that?

Nope, people seem to have caught Paul Foot's disease - the Rhyl evidence is right so the DNA must be wrong. Try reading it with an open mind - I did and despite believing Hanratty to be innocent for many years, I've now come to the conclusion that his guilt has been established "beyond reasonable doubt".

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!

[JamesDean]

Hi Reg,

Do you believe forensic evidence proved Stefan Kiszco innocent and that DNA evidence identified the real culprit?

Do you believe that anyone has been rightfully convicted as a direct result of forensic evidence? Or do you believe that all defendants should be given the benefit of the doubt and presumed innocent if a guilty verdict hinges on the forensics? Just trying to see where your logic leads you if it's just a case of not being able to trust science to get anything right.

By the way, I had no idea whether or not Hanratty was guilty until recently. I was eight when he was convicted, and my earliest memories were of my dad getting cross with the "lefties" who were suggesting "the murdering swine" was innocent. My reaction to dad's attitude was always to rebel against it. When he was called for jury service I joked that he might as well just post a 'Guilty!' note to the judge and have done with it. He tended to the view that innocent men don't find themselves in the dock.

As I learned more about cases of injustice I appreciated just how wrong dad was not to judge each case on its merits or otherwise, but to stick with his belief that the police and the courts could never do any wrong, and that "lefties" were always on the side of the criminal. When I learned more about the A6 murder case, and how Paul Foot was convinced that there had been a miscarriage of justice, I thought it would only be a matter of time before Hanratty's total innocence would be proven, or at the very least that his conviction would be declared unsafe.

Up until very recently I believed, like you, that the DNA evidence would no doubt turn out to have holes in it that you could drive a 36A bus through. But that was before I read (and I mean really read) all the details kindly supplied by our fellow posters. And try as I might I cannot see how any combination of framing or incompetence, concerning the acquisition, disposal, retention and contamination of evidence, could reasonably explain, or could reasonably have produced such a result.

That is where I stand right now, but unlike my dad I never say never. So if you or anyone else can come up with something better than "the science is always going to be inherently unreliable" I will be only too willing to listen and reconsider. That's why I'm still here. Thanks to daddy I have an inherent dislike of injustice and look for every loophole before feeling certain that justice has been done. If dad were here now, still proclaiming Hanratty's guilt, it would mean precious little. But when I reached the point of thinking he was indeed guilty beyond reasonable doubt, you can bet I didn't do so lightly.

Love,

Caz
X

Hi Caz,

I think that perhaps you are labouring under the misconception that Reg (and I, as I share some of his views) think that LCN is worthless as an evidential tool and that it always gives false or spurious results. Speaking solely for myself I can say that I believe that LCN does have a valid place in the legal system and is capable of providing corroborative evidence. However, it is not perfect at this point in time and in 1997 was probably considerably less perfect than it is today.

The arguments put forward against the infallibility of the DNA tests in the Hanratty case are to some extent based upon doubt about the technique employed at the time and the cradle to grave lifecycle of the 'fragment' which to all intents and purposes is unknown. We don't know how the knickers and other items of clothing in the case were handled, either in storage or during examination prior to the trial, so it is impossible to categorically state that no contamination can have taken place. Victor always refers to the lack of a liquid stain in the package containg the fragment when it was re-discovered in 1991. The broken vial theory is only one of many ways that the fragment could have been contaminated. It could have been contaminated by the process of testing in the lab. Was any one of us there to scrutinise the procedures and to verify that there could have been no mixup occurring in the lab? No, we rely on that by blind faith. You will no doubt say that this is not even a remote possibility, that nothing could have gone wrong in the lab. If that is your opinion then I would ask you to explain why you have that opinion? There are no accepted standards even today for LCN testing let alone 1997. The technique was 'work in progress' back in those days.

Now you will say I'm biased against LCN and what I'm really saying that is that no process is foolproof, particularly when that process is still under development and is using materials of dubious quality. Can you guarantee the results in 1997 were correct? Can you guarantee that no mixup occurred in the lab? Can you guarantee that any DNA deposit on the fragment from JH was not a result of contamination prior to the trial or during the testing process in the lab? Can you guarantee that the fragment ever had the DNA of the rapist on it?

And what do you infer from this statement in the judgment to which you and others repeatedly refer:

With regard to the knicker fragment we have what Dr Whitaker would describe as a typical distribution of male and female DNA following an act of sexual intercourse leading to the obvious inference that the male contribution came from James Hanratty.

This statement has achieved 'God like' status to those who proclaim that the judgment is as infallible as the DNA, which in truth it is! Tell me how you interpret that sentence please! It's important because I believe it is misleading.

To have doubt or reservation about the Hanratty DNA evidence is not a heretical claim that DNA is worthless or that LCN is incapable of producing corroborative evidence. We are not questioning the value of DNA evidence per se but questioning the value of DNA evidence in less than ideal conditions and using a technique in it's infancy that has yet to gain international acceptance. To me there is a little red flag waving and I am cautious of simply accepting the judgment because it may have 'seemed' to have been the correct conclusion at the time it was written. Questions have to be asked! Many of those questions cannot ever be answered so in my mind there is an element of doubt.

The jury back in 1962, after deliberating for many hours, asked Justice Gorman for guidance on the meaning of 'reasonable doubt'. He answered that if there was 'any' doubt then there was reasonable doubt. That the jury even asked the question suggests to me that there was indeed reasonable doubt. I believe there is reasonable doubt about the Hanratty DNA test result and, therefore, the conclusion reached in the judgment.

That Hanratty was not acquitted may well have been the result of some brow beating in the jury room. 'A' type personalities can overwhelm those who are not so forthright in their views. There are one or two 'A' type personalities here on the forum. That's not a bad thing but it doesn't make them right and everyone else wrong because they have overwhelmingly strong views.

Sometimes we disagree because we simply don't understand what the other person is saying. Sometimes it's because we have entrenched views and nobody is going to change our mind. That's life!

Love
James
x

[Victor]

Why is Reg's opinion dogmatic and yours not?

That'd be jimarilyn not Reg, but because I've read the evidence and I have changed my opinion, therefore by definition it isn't dogmatic.

The implication being that we are not capable of understanding the science and therefore we cannot validly argue the case for contamination or against the LCN technique. So it's only your opinion that counts eh?

Utter rubbish! Of course you can make any points you like - and you in particular have done - but silly comments to the effect of "scientists (and police) are all dodgy" are ridiculous. As long as the points are valid then people can respond, if they're dogmatic rubbish it's pointless. And don't forget that both the CPS and defence team had expert scientific input to the judgement.

Erm ... isn't that what we are doing? Your objection is that 'our' opinion is not the same as yours!

Nope, people seem to have caught Paul Foot's disease - the Rhyl evidence is right so the DNA must be wrong. Try reading it with an open mind - I did and despite believing Hanratty to be innocent for many years, I've now come to the conclusion that his guilt has been established "beyond reasonable doubt".

[JamesDean]

I'm a graduate chemist and capable of understanding the science, and have made my own mind up, instead of dogmatically clinging to the now unsupportable position of JH's innocence.

Why is Reg's opinion dogmatic and yours not?

I'm a graduate chemist and capable of understanding the science, and have made my own mind up, instead of dogmatically clinging to the now unsupportable position of JH's innocence. I can validly argue the case against contamination, and for the LCN technique because I understand it.

The implication being that we are not capable of understanding the science and therefore we cannot validly argue the case for contamination or against the LCN technique. So it's only your opinion that counts eh?

I don't care whether you believe what myself and others say about the evidence or not, in fact I'd prefer it if you'd go through the evidence, absorb it and make your own mind up.

Erm ... isn't that what we are doing? Your objection is that 'our' opinion is not the same as yours!

[Victor]

Looks like I've touched a raw nerve.

So are you going to respond?

[jimarilyn]

I've not seen another post that is as much sycophantic excrement as this.

I give myself away with my "strong anti-Hanratty bias" - what a joke, for the majority of my life I've thought Hanratty was innocent!

I'm a graduate chemist and capable of understanding the science, and have made my own mind up, instead of dogmatically clinging to the now unsupportable position of JH's innocence. I can validly argue the case against contamination, and for the LCN technique because I understand it.

I don't care whether you believe what myself and others say about the evidence or not, in fact I'd prefer it if you'd go through the evidence, absorb it and make your own mind up.

Instead you rashly abuse those who don't agree with your position (despite not being able to form a coherent case for it) and try to force your opinion on us. Just like the worst fundamentalists of every religion.

Caz has been on these boards for ages - note the "Casebook Supporter" flag she has - and contributes to many threads, including the A6 murder thread - her posts are usually well considered and informative.

Johnl has written some posts that I would describe as "frustrated" rather than "angry", but that's just my opinion.


Well Reg, I would answer your question, but as it is more about the general A6 murder case rather than about the DNA evidence I think you've posted it on the wrong thread

Looks like I've touched a raw nerve.

Hi Reg,

Do you believe forensic evidence proved Stefan Kiszco innocent and that DNA evidence identified the real culprit?

Do you believe that anyone has been rightfully convicted as a direct result of forensic evidence? Or do you believe that all defendants should be given the benefit of the doubt and presumed innocent if a guilty verdict hinges on the forensics? Just trying to see where your logic leads you if it's just a case of not being able to trust science to get anything right.

By the way, I had no idea whether or not Hanratty was guilty until recently. I was eight when he was convicted, and my earliest memories were of my dad getting cross with the "lefties" who were suggesting "the murdering swine" was innocent. My reaction to dad's attitude was always to rebel against it. When he was called for jury service I joked that he might as well just post a 'Guilty!' note to the judge and have done with it. He tended to the view that innocent men don't find themselves in the dock.

As I learned more about cases of injustice I appreciated just how wrong dad was not to judge each case on its merits or otherwise, but to stick with his belief that the police and the courts could never do any wrong, and that "lefties" were always on the side of the criminal. When I learned more about the A6 murder case, and how Paul Foot was convinced that there had been a miscarriage of justice, I thought it would only be a matter of time before Hanratty's total innocence would be proven, or at the very least that his conviction would be declared unsafe.

Up until very recently I believed, like you, that the DNA evidence would no doubt turn out to have holes in it that you could drive a 36A bus through. But that was before I read (and I mean really read) all the details kindly supplied by our fellow posters. And try as I might I cannot see how any combination of framing or incompetence, concerning the acquisition, disposal, retention and contamination of evidence, could reasonably explain, or could reasonably have produced such a result.

That is where I stand right now, but unlike my dad I never say never. So if you or anyone else can come up with something better than "the science is always going to be inherently unreliable" I will be only too willing to listen and reconsider. That's why I'm still here. Thanks to daddy I have an inherent dislike of injustice and look for every loophole before feeling certain that justice has been done. If dad were here now, still proclaiming Hanratty's guilt, it would mean precious little. But when I reached the point of thinking he was indeed guilty beyond reasonable doubt, you can bet I didn't do so lightly.

Love,

Caz
X

Hi Caz
What an excellent post.
I don't jump all over science or experts at every possible available juncture. I am a scientist myself - computer science - I am a software engineer and am currently doing MSc research work. I am well aware of the exactitude that must be employed when developing computer systems that critically must be nye on foolproof (this is extremely difficult to achieve within timescales and available resources). Just take for instance the software that modern civil aircraft rely on!
If I see something that doesn't make sense I would like to investigate it and judge it on its merits, and in each case.

DNA is the most scientifically sound forensic evidence that could be put before a jury and I am sure that many people have been correctly convicted with the aid of this science. Through the research I have done into the Hanratty DNA I must say that I have a very good reason for doubt.

The reason is the involvement of Dr Johnathan Whitaker in it! I would not trust this man as far as I could throw him (and I am a quite a big bloke!). His LCN technique and the expert evidence he gives is being quite seriously questioned by a myriad of accredited international independent forensic DNA experts. I have posted about this on several occasions.

It smacks of the nonsense that Roy Meadows used to spout about cot death and shaken baby syndrome which caused so much grief to so many families.

I look at cases where forensic (or other) evidence just does not add up.

By the way have you had a look into the John Taft case? A different take on the power of DNA evidence to convict.

Regards
Reg

[Victor]

Smack on Reg. 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.

Victor gives himself away (post 6) with his strong anti-Hanratty bias, so any official statement advocating Hanratty's guilt is lapped up by him.
Caz, I couldn't help but notice, had submitted about 400 posts before she decided to start posting on this thread. I wonder why ? Had she suddenly become bored with the other threads she was on ?
As for Johnl, well his repetitive (and often angry) posts on the subject speak for themselves.

I've not seen another post that is as much sycophantic excrement as this.

I give myself away with my "strong anti-Hanratty bias" - what a joke, for the majority of my life I've thought Hanratty was innocent!

I'm a graduate chemist and capable of understanding the science, and have made my own mind up, instead of dogmatically clinging to the now unsupportable position of JH's innocence. I can validly argue the case against contamination, and for the LCN technique because I understand it.

I don't care whether you believe what myself and others say about the evidence or not, in fact I'd prefer it if you'd go through the evidence, absorb it and make your own mind up.

Instead you rashly abuse those who don't agree with your position (despite not being able to form a coherent case for it) and try to force your opinion on us. Just like the worst fundamentalists of every religion.

Caz has been on these boards for ages - note the "Casebook Supporter" flag she has - and contributes to many threads, including the A6 murder thread - her posts are usually well considered and informative.

Johnl has written some posts that I would describe as "frustrated" rather than "angry", but that's just my opinion.

All right then pal, why did you doubt JH's guilt and what evidence(s) changed your mind?

Reg

Well Reg, I would answer your question, but as it is more about the general A6 murder case rather than about the DNA evidence I think you've posted it on the wrong thread

[caz]

Hi Reg,

Do you believe forensic evidence proved Stefan Kiszco innocent and that DNA evidence identified the real culprit?

Do you believe that anyone has been rightfully convicted as a direct result of forensic evidence? Or do you believe that all defendants should be given the benefit of the doubt and presumed innocent if a guilty verdict hinges on the forensics? Just trying to see where your logic leads you if it's just a case of not being able to trust science to get anything right.

By the way, I had no idea whether or not Hanratty was guilty until recently. I was eight when he was convicted, and my earliest memories were of my dad getting cross with the "lefties" who were suggesting "the murdering swine" was innocent. My reaction to dad's attitude was always to rebel against it. When he was called for jury service I joked that he might as well just post a 'Guilty!' note to the judge and have done with it. He tended to the view that innocent men don't find themselves in the dock.

As I learned more about cases of injustice I appreciated just how wrong dad was not to judge each case on its merits or otherwise, but to stick with his belief that the police and the courts could never do any wrong, and that "lefties" were always on the side of the criminal. When I learned more about the A6 murder case, and how Paul Foot was convinced that there had been a miscarriage of justice, I thought it would only be a matter of time before Hanratty's total innocence would be proven, or at the very least that his conviction would be declared unsafe.

Up until very recently I believed, like you, that the DNA evidence would no doubt turn out to have holes in it that you could drive a 36A bus through. But that was before I read (and I mean really read) all the details kindly supplied by our fellow posters. And try as I might I cannot see how any combination of framing or incompetence, concerning the acquisition, disposal, retention and contamination of evidence, could reasonably explain, or could reasonably have produced such a result.

That is where I stand right now, but unlike my dad I never say never. So if you or anyone else can come up with something better than "the science is always going to be inherently unreliable" I will be only too willing to listen and reconsider. That's why I'm still here. Thanks to daddy I have an inherent dislike of injustice and look for every loophole before feeling certain that justice has been done. If dad were here now, still proclaiming Hanratty's guilt, it would mean precious little. But when I reached the point of thinking he was indeed guilty beyond reasonable doubt, you can bet I didn't do so lightly.

Love,

Caz
X

[jimarilyn]

It makes me laugh when I think of when the Hanratty did it brigade trot out the DNA proves it beyond doubt argument.

Why do you bother? What have you got to prove? You have believed all along that Hanratty was guilty so why get involved.

Are you trying to blind people with science and tell them that DNA testing is infallible along with the practitoners and thier clients? Or are you just patronising them? I am sure that I am not alone in thinking this. A lot of posters are getting fed up with it.

I don't buy any of the rubbish that the DNA proves it gang posts on here. I am even more sure that I am not alone in thinking this either.

I would need a hell of a lot more reliable evidence of someones guilt before I considered taking results from LCN thats for sure.

If you lot want the DNA argument back on the main thread who am I to stop you? It's a free country, apparently!Reg

Smack on Reg. 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.

Victor gives himself away (post 6) with his strong anti-Hanratty bias, so any official statement advocating Hanratty's guilt is lapped up by him.
Caz, I couldn't help but notice, had submitted about 400 posts before she decided to start posting on this thread. I wonder why ? Had she suddenly become bored with the other threads she was on ?
As for Johnl, well his repetitive (and often angry) posts on the subject speak for themselves.

Lying again Reg.

All right then pal, why did you doubt JH's guilt and what evidence(s) changed your mind?

Reg

[Victor]

You have believed all along that Hanratty was guilty so why get involved.

Lying again Reg.

It makes me laugh when I think of when the Hanratty did it brigade trot out the DNA proves it beyond doubt argument.

Why do you bother? What have you got to prove? You have believed all along that Hanratty was guilty so why get involved.

Are you trying to blind people with science and tell them that DNA testing is infallible along with the practitoners and thier clients? Or are you just patronising them? I am sure that I am not alone in thinking this. A lot of posters are getting fed up with it.

I don't buy any of the rubbish that the DNA proves it gang posts on here. I am even more sure that I am not alone in thinking this either.

I would need a hell of a lot more reliable evidence of someones guilt before I considered taking results from LCN thats for sure.

If you lot want the DNA argument back on the main thread who am I to stop you?
It's a free country, apparently!

Reg

[Victor]

Well if you ignore the DNA, then you can start hammering the one eyewitness who spent hours in a car with her attacker!

Or rely on a dodgy new alibi that appearred halfway through the investigation - thus proving that JH is a liar! What would have been next - Oh I wasn't in Liverpool, it was Rhyl... no not Rhyl, I mean Bridlington...erm Glasgow...

[caz]

Hi Victor,

I'd go further and suggest that there is no case being made for Hanratty's innocence on the other thread if nobody is willing or able to argue against the DNA evidence over there.

'The experts could have got the scientific evidence wrong because they get it wrong in all sorts of other cases, so let's move on and pretend it doesn't make any difference' seems pretty lame to me.

Love,

Caz
X