A6 Murder DNA evidence

[Victor]

In short, if forensic evidence could only ever confirm your opinion, but never sway you from it, I understand why you want to distance it from the main discussion as a total irrelevance in this particular case. But shoving it to one side just makes it look like it's relevant enough to be inconvenient.

Interesting hypothesis.

Can't argue against the DNA, so let's just sweep it all aside into another thread.

It's part of the case, so deserves to be part of the thread.

[caz]

Hi Reg,

If I may, I'll start by quoting from a couple of recent posts to the main thread:

...the eminent geneticist Dr. John Parrington who deals with DNA on a daily basis and who warns Joe Public to guard against any findings because of the inherent flaws associated with DNA testing/profiling.

I wonder if a similar intense and prolonged debate would have ensued had JH's incrimination been down to fingerprint evidence...

To take Graham's point further, what about any other kind of forensic/medical evidence (eg sperm v no sperm; id of victims from gall stones or operation scars; so-called shaken baby syndrome; cot death v smothering and so on - the list goes on of all the possibilities for the 'experts' to make serious errors) used in the past to help convict someone of murder, or indeed to quash a conviction, or prove someone or something else responsible?

The problem with beating the “Hanratty is innocent” drum using the simplistic “forensics are fallible” or “scientists can screw up/sell their souls” argument, without due regard to the individual circumstances, is that it has to work both ways.

If you want to forget the specific forensic evidence presented in the A6 murder case, and rely instead on a general rule that says the man on the street can never really trust the ‘experts’ to get it right, then you have to apply it to every case, whether it has been upheld by forensics or overturned. And where would that leave poor Stefan Kiszco, who was finally cleared by the same fallible modern forensics, or the man who followed him into the frame via the same inherently flawed DNA analysis? How did people bring themselves to trust the science on this occasion? By dealing with the specifics that distinguished this tragic case from every other, or by temporarily tossing out the rule book when it suited?

Why not test your own rules - and objectivity - by imagining that some of Alphon’s DNA had been identified on the victim's knickers instead, and no sign of Hanratty’s? Hand on heart, would you not have tossed away the rule book about inherently flawed results and accepted Alphon’s guilt without question? Or would you still be imagining ways in which the knicker fragment might well have escaped the real rapist’s profile and been contaminated by that of a potentially innocent man in the process of having helped (or hindered) the police with their enquiries?

In short, if forensic evidence could only ever confirm your opinion, but never sway you from it, I understand why you want to distance it from the main discussion as a total irrelevance in this particular case. But shoving it to one side just makes it look like it's relevant enough to be inconvenient.

Love,

Caz
X

Hi All

The Hanratty appeal reached its finalisation in May 2002 when the appeal court judges upheld the safety of the original conviction. This ruling was based wholeheartedly on DNA evidence.

The ruling document can be found here:

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2002/1141.html

The judges where not moved one iota by the appellants grounds, even though shocking non-disclosure of evidence by the police had originally taken place.

I was totally shocked by the ruling when he was announced as I believed that the Rhyl alibi was irresistable and I still do. Therefore from the outset I was not convinced by the DNA evidence. I have remained sceptical ever since.

As time as gone on other cases involving DNA evidence have had the DNA evidence rejected as being unreliable. This culminated in the case of R vs Hoey (Omagh bombing case) (2007). In this case the judge Justice Weir throw out the DNA evidence after the defences expert witnesses team lead by Professor Allan Jamieson of the Forensic Institute in Glasgow showed that the technique used, LCN (low copy number or LT - low template) DNA was unreliable.

The pioneer of the technique Dr Johnathan Whitaker gave evidence for the prosecution in Hoey and in Hanratty. LCN was the technique used in Hanratty.

It is extremely likely that the DNA results in Hanratty would now also be deemed unreliable.

After Hoey, the use of LCN was temporarily suspended pending an independent review. Its use was then reinstated.

The ruling in Hoey can be found here:

http://www.bailii.org/nie/cases/NICC/2007/49.html

The review findings into LCN/LT DNA can be found here:

http://police.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/operational-policing/Review_of_Low_Template_DNA_1.pdf?view=Binary

The review body and their findings were heavily criticised by the Forensic Institute in a press release that followed.

The press release can be found here:

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

Any comments anyone?
Regards
Reg

[reg1965]

Hi all

This thread is a spill over from the 'a6 murder' thread started by LaRue, which is the currently the most posted to thread on the whole Casebook site!!

Recently on the above thread the matter of the DNA evidence presented at the Appeal R vs Hanratty (2002) has taken over pretty much all of the debate.

Therefore I decided to start this thread to discuss this point and issues that surround and compliment it.

Do not be put off by the science as, to my knowledge, no expert forensic DNA scientists have posted thus far...although they are most welcome too!

I would suggest that anything else about the A6 Murder should be posted on the original thread.

Kind Regards
Reg1965