A6 Murder DNA evidence

[Derrick]

Hi Viv

This is a bit harsh isn't it?

Harsh...why?
Ron doesn't fink that the original evidence was enough to convict.
Ron confesses to knowing nothing about DNA.
Ron uses words like sensible, right thinking etc to describe those like him who accept the DNA evidence and the Court of Appeals decision.

Ron is a hypocrite for putting forward a counter argument that is formed entirely of points the he doesn't even know about (DNA) or agree with (strong case).

Harsh. I was just being fair, given Ron's stance.

Has DNA evidence been disregarded by the uk courts now? If not why not if 'common sense' dictates it should be?

Read the appeal court ruling in Reed and the Caddy review.

There has to be an element of blind faith in taht you don't KNOW hanratty is innocent anymore than I would know he was guilty. As it happens Hanratty's defence was too weak to be upheld by the jurors whatever you or I might think.

How do you know what the jury thought was damning in convicting Hanratty? It may have had nothing to do with his defence. The jury could have convicted purely because they didn't like the look of him coupled with Valeries testimony and the horror of the crime.

That the establishment feel the case was a strong one makes litlel difference surely?

Inasmuch as that they wouldn't use it as an excuse to uphold their view that the DNA was enough to prove Hanratty's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Not!

Derrick

[Victor]

The portion of garment from which the DNA was extracted was cut from the original garment. It was stored under questionable circumstances for many years. Whatever anyone says about sealed packages- the packages were not stored carefully - in laboratory conditions - in order for them to be re-examined years later. They were found by accident.

Hi Julie,

If the same technique can get DNA profiles from Egyptian Mummies which are a couple of orders of magnitude older, then what's the issue? Yes, they were re-discovered by accident, but as you point out, they were in sealed packages.

Moreover - even if the packages were sealed and stored separately - how do we know what happened before they were stored? There is NO guarantee that all of the garments from Hanratty and Storie were not jumbled together at some stage in the investigation.

The knickers were sent to the Lab and the piece cut from them before the trial, and there's the issue of the "vanishing" semen if Hanratty is innocent.

Additionally - how do we know that there was not more DNA evidence on the disgarded portion of garment?

There was more DNA on the discarded portion, but more DNA from the same 3 people.

Science may well be able to detect the presence of Hanratty on VS's garment - but it cannot prove beyond doubt that Hanratty deposited it there and there is no physical evidence anywhere else to prove that Hanratty was ever in that car.

Hanratty's profile could theoretically come from secondary or tertiary transfer of DNA, but that doesn't explain the missing rapists' profile. The evidence from the car - the bloodstained rug, &tc. was destroyed and can't be re-investigated now.

KR,
Vic.

[Victor]

Who exactly are the"rest of us"? Would that include Michael Sherrard CBE QC, who really did know a lot more about the fitting up of Hanratty and his "flawed trial" than any of us will ever know!

Hi Norma,

The same Michael Sherrard who said "The wrong man was not hanged"

I guess that means Yes, him included.

KR,
Vic.

[jason_c]

And where have I ever stated that Hanratty was innocent and Alphon was guilty?

I didnt say that you had, apologies if i gave that impression. Many on here have suggested Alphon was guilty though(not only on here but a number of authors have too).

[Limehouse]

Perhaps not beyond reasonable doubt for a court of law, but it ought to be enough for most posters on an internet forum. Its still a huge tick in the Hanratty is guilty column.

Some of the "evidence" of Alphons' guilt on here amounts to next to nothing compared to the DNA evidence. It takes numerous intellectual jumping through hoops to convict Alphon and exonerate Hanratty.

Hanratty being innocent is a reasonable enough arguement - even though i disagree with it. Hanratty as innocent and Alphon as guilty is a far more dubious stance to take. Unless of course Alphon is simply being used as a tool to bring about a degree of doubt on Hanrattys innocence.........

And where have I ever stated that Hanratty was innocent and Alphon was guilty?

[jason_c]

Fair enough Jason. That's what you accept. However - I believe we are not looking at a straight-forward case of fresh DNA detecting a criminal.

The portion of garment from which the DNA was extracted was cut from the original garment. It was stored under questionable circumstances for many years. Whatever anyone says about sealed packages- the packages were not stored carefully - in laboratory conditions - in order for them to be re-examined years later. They were found by accident. Moreover - even if the packages were sealed and stored separately - how do we know what happened before they were stored? There is NO guarantee that all of the garments from Hanratty and Storie were not jumbled together at some stage in the investigation.

Additionally - how do we know that there was not more DNA evidence on the disgarded portion of garment?

Science may well be able to detect the presence of Hanratty on VS's garment - but it cannot prove beyond doubt that Hanratty deposited it there and there is no physical evidence anywhere else to prove that Hanratty was ever in that car.

Perhaps not beyond reasonable doubt for a court of law, but it ought to be enough for most posters on an internet forum. Its still a huge tick in the Hanratty is guilty column.

Some of the "evidence" of Alphons' guilt on here amounts to next to nothing compared to the DNA evidence. It takes numerous intellectual jumping through hoops to convict Alphon and exonerate Hanratty.

Hanratty being innocent is a reasonable enough arguement - even though i disagree with it. Hanratty as innocent and Alphon as guilty is a far more dubious stance to take. Unless of course Alphon is simply being used as a tool to bring about a degree of doubt on Hanrattys innocence.........

[Limehouse]

Hanratty's DNA is evidence of attention seeking or mental illness on the part of Alphon and his "confession".

Not only does the DNA convict Hanratty it proves the innocence of Alphon

Fair enough Jason. That's what you accept. However - I believe we are not looking at a straight-forward case of fresh DNA detecting a criminal.

The portion of garment from which the DNA was extracted was cut from the original garment. It was stored under questionable circumstances for many years. Whatever anyone says about sealed packages- the packages were not stored carefully - in laboratory conditions - in order for them to be re-examined years later. They were found by accident. Moreover - even if the packages were sealed and stored separately - how do we know what happened before they were stored? There is NO guarantee that all of the garments from Hanratty and Storie were not jumbled together at some stage in the investigation.

Additionally - how do we know that there was not more DNA evidence on the disgarded portion of garment?

Science may well be able to detect the presence of Hanratty on VS's garment - but it cannot prove beyond doubt that Hanratty deposited it there and there is no physical evidence anywhere else to prove that Hanratty was ever in that car.

[jason_c]

Of all the people who implicated Alphon,none of them compare remotely with his own statements that the A6 murderer was himself.His first "written confession" was in May 1961.He had been in some anguish over the execution of Hanratty and started to make a series of threatening phone calls---among these were ,its believed,to the hospital where Valerie was recovering from her horrific ordeal.He again spoke to to Paul Foot on the telephone, about how he did the murder this time it waswhen the press conference had taken place and Foot had missed it.By 1971 the death sentence had been abolished so he felt freer to give a large press conference in Paris to the international media,implicating Ewer as the man who organised for a hitman and France who obtained the gun for him- and who he thought got what he deserved.There were always several "errors" in his "confessions" which he explained as being due to his sense of "self preservation"ie he didnt want to go to jail over it .Astonishingly,he also said that although it was an accident the killing of Gregsten,he felt nothing at all about it or the dreadful injuries he had inflicted on Valerie and that he had had a mission to rid the world of such immorality.He said he was still a fascist and that he had no regrets-except over Hanratty being executed.
Valerie,its true,did not pick out Alphon in the identification parade,but she did pick a man out ,[who never went to court to help people see what he looked like,]but we know he was heavily built with fairish hair---which could not be said about Hanratty at that moment in time.Alphon was also slight but had broader shoulders.Valerie agreed she had said the man she had picked out could be said to have looked like Alphon!!![in her Court exchange with Michael Sherrard]

Hanratty's DNA is evidence of attention seeking or mental illness on the part of Alphon and his "confession".

Not only does the DNA convict Hanratty it proves the innocence of Alphon

[Natalie Severn]

Until someone with the necessary expertise , not just any Herbert with a chip on his shoulder, states that the DNA in the Hanratty case was at the wrong end of the spectrum, then the rest of us should assume that the Court of Appeal was right and that the interpretation of the evidence before them was correct.

Who exactly are the"rest of us"? Would that include Michael Sherrard CBE QC, who really did know a lot more about the fitting up of Hanratty and his "flawed trial" than any of us will ever know!

[RonIpstone]

No DNA evidence can prove anybody's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt as it can only exclude a suspect at best.

It would seem at the Hanratty appeal the DNA evidence was sufficient to exclude P L Alphon as a suspect.

LCN can not exclude which makes it unsuitable as evidence in a law court.

I take it that this is your lay scepticism in action.


There is quite a good article in the Law Gazette jointly written by a criminal barrister and a solicitor with previous scientific expertise. I give the link to the Law Gazette.

I quote from the above:

"The question arises: why do prosecuting authorities continue to use LCN at all? The answer is that LCN will generate DNA results where regular testing will not. However, the quality of LCN results will vary. At one end of the spectrum will be the easily interpretable and probably evidentially acceptable result; at the other end will be a scientist’s essentially subjective interpretation of a poor result. "

Until someone with the necessary expertise , not just any Herbert with a chip on his shoulder, states that the DNA in the Hanratty case was at the wrong end of the spectrum, then the rest of us should assume that the Court of Appeal was right and that the interpretation of the evidence before them was correct.

[Natalie Severn]

The court spoke of an initial strong case against Hanratty which is complete bollocks

Yes, and there was no real evidence,none at all to link Hanratty to the murder.Even had Valerie not wrongly identified Michael Clark as her rapist and Gregsten"s killer,in her first identification parade, I would still be cautious about any identification by a witness who caught only a glimpse,of a masked gunman and heard his voice while in a state of shock, and whose image she had said was fading even after only two weeks..
Nothing in the car was ever found to link it to Hanratty,no finger prints were found on the two empty cartridge cases found by Crocker 19 days after the murder in a room Hanratty stayed in before the murder, the same hotel that Alphon had booked into the day Hanratty left, 22nd August.
Yes,his monogramed hanky was found wrapped round a gun and a big pile of ammunition on a bus that passed close to the Vienna Hotel but again,not a single fingerprint on any of it---and how very convenient---the supposed killer supposedly leaving his initials neatly written on the "hidden" ammunition.
As for any semen that appeared or disappeared over the years on a fragment of knicker--which was kept in completely unacceptable conditions for testing DNA for over forty years,then such a "test" is -well-as Derrick says, complete and utter bollocks.
Hanratty was the patsy not the gunman.

[jimornot?]

You are having a laugh mate.

The Court of Appeal applied circular logic to support it's own decision to accept the DNA as being certain of Hanratty guilt.

No DNA evidence can prove anybody's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt as it can only exclude a suspect at best. LCN can not exclude which makes it unsuitable as evidence in a law court.

The court spoke of an initial strong case against Hanratty which is complete bollocks. In fact the actual evidence in this case is weak to say the least, which you support. But you are a hypocrite who wants it all ways. You accept the DNA and the courts acceptance of the DNA in the round compared to the other evidence. Which is it Ron?

Blind faith is what I said and blind faith is what you have. There is no point trying to hide behind a DNA expert coming forward. It doesn't need one. You just have to read a bit about the subject and apply a bit of common sense.

Derrick

Hi Derrick

This is a bit harsh isn't it?

Has DNA evidence been disregarded by the uk courts now? If not why not if 'common sense' dictates it should be?

There has to be an element of blind faith in taht you don't KNOW hanratty is innocent anymore than I would know he was guilty. As it happens Hanratty's defence was too weak to be upheld by the jurors whatever you or I might think. That the establishment feel the case was a strong one makes litlel difference surely?

all the best

viv

[Derrick]

...all sensible people will adopt the reasoned logic of the Court of Appeal based on the actual evidence.

You are having a laugh mate.

The Court of Appeal applied circular logic to support it's own decision to accept the DNA as being certain of Hanratty guilt.

No DNA evidence can prove anybody's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt as it can only exclude a suspect at best. LCN can not exclude which makes it unsuitable as evidence in a law court.

The court spoke of an initial strong case against Hanratty which is complete bollocks. In fact the actual evidence in this case is weak to say the least, which you support. But you are a hypocrite who wants it all ways. You accept the DNA and the courts acceptance of the DNA in the round compared to the other evidence. Which is it Ron?

Blind faith is what I said and blind faith is what you have. There is no point trying to hide behind a DNA expert coming forward. It doesn't need one. You just have to read a bit about the subject and apply a bit of common sense.

Derrick

[RonIpstone]

My 'faith' is based on the expert evidence which has been given in this case by both the prosecution and defence. We should remember that the Hanratty defence team was full of enthusiasm for the DNA testing to proceed, it was only when the inconvenient results were known that a certain amount of back tracking appears to have taken place.

Dr Lincoln, the initial Hanratty expert, seems to have been replaced by Dr Evison, yet even the latter could not come up with the explanation as to why Hanratty's DNA should be present as a contaminant when the rapist's DNA had vanished but VS's and MG's DNA was still present. When people with a healthy lay scepticism have addressed that point with expert scientific evidence, then the rest of us might take the argument seriously. Until that time, as churlish as it might seem, all sensible people will adopt the reasoned logic of the Court of Appeal based on the actual evidence.

[Derrick]

It seems a fair point that he made. Until someone in the Hanratty camp with the appropriate scientific and forensic qualifications grapples successfully with the inconvenient DNA evidence, then Jim's guilt must be regarded as established.
This has not yet been done.

Perhaps Jason had a point to make, but yours is churlish.

I am not a bio-chemist and neither are you.

My stand is one of lay skepticism over the DNA evidence, via the Reed appeal/Caddy review findings.

Yours is one of blind faith.

The difference could not be more stark.

Derrick