A6 Murder DNA evidence

[Natalie Severn]

Agreed. Particularly when a number of posters try to implacate another man in the murder - Alphon.

And to a lesser extent the many harsh criticisms of Valerie Storie by Hanratty loyalists.

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]

[jason_c]

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.

Agreed. Particularly when a number of posters try to implacate another man in the murder - Alphon.

And to a lesser extent the many harsh criticisms of Valerie Storie by Hanratty loyalists.

[RonIpstone]

But you have nothing else to add?

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.

[Derrick]

This thread still casts a huge shadow on discussions concerning the Hanratty case on this site.

Im just bumping the thread to remind everyone the DNA evidence is still stalking Mr Hanratty.

But you have nothing else to add?

[jason_c]

This thread still casts a huge shadow on discussions concerning the Hanratty case on this site.

Im just bumping the thread to remind everyone the DNA evidence is still stalking Mr Hanratty.

[caz]

...Caz's pretty slick rebuttal...

Cheers, Graham.

But it would have been seriously slick for two separate, complex conspiracies to work so well - one back in the early 60s, involving petty crooks initially setting Hanratty up (without knowing that his blood group would match the real rapist's, or that he wouldn't be able to provide a verifiable alibi, or that Valerie would pick him out, or that the jury would play ball) and another far more serious one forty years later, involving the powers that be, playing fast and loose with the DNA evidence to produce the 'desired' result.

Love,

Caz
X

[Victor]

The argument for possible contamination rests on criticisms of the process LCN being able to pick up tiny amounts of DNA...hence, contamination could occur from just a few flakes of skin, making detection more likely...is this right?

That's the general idea...

There are two incompatable arguments going on here:-
1. LCN is so sensitive that it gives DNA profiles from the slightest smidgen of contamination.
2. LCN can miss detecting a patch of (visible?) sperm heads.
Both positions can't be right, and arguing for one is arguing against the other and vice versa.

If this is true, and contamination can occur from such microscopic amounts, surely this makes it even MORE unlikely that the actual rapists DNA could have been utterly eroded, yet leaving behind enough of VS, MG and JH to still be detectable.

Have you got to the DNA profiles from 4,000 year old mummies yet?
Or the DNA is inherently stable and needs something to drgrade it such as water or bacteria...

I tend to agree with Graham, the attacks on Dr Whittaker seems to be the old tactic of "playing the man not the ball". Also I cannot see any motive for mis-reporting or manufacturing the results, why would anyone go to that trouble in time, effort and expense? Especially in the light of Sean Hodgson, amongst others.

KR,
Vic.

[Graham]

A small point - I don't pretend to be anywhere near up to speed on DNA and its pros and cons, so don't really get involved in the DNA debate - perfectly willing and happy to read other people's posts and learn from them.

But I do have to say that I think it is very telling that Reg, that great supporter of Contamination of Samples, made no response whatsoever to Caz's pretty slick rebuttal of Reg's various claims and beliefs about the Case.

This really serves to reinforce my long-held view that the DNA analysis and results were fair and not subject to any serious doubt or misinterpretation.

Graham

[babybird67]

haven't read the whole thread yet...

and apologies if this has already been said, but in dealing with the DNA, a contraiction strikes me...

The argument for possible contamination rests on criticisms of the process LCN being able to pick up tiny amounts of DNA...hence, contamination could occur from just a few flakes of skin, making detection more likely...is this right?

If this is true, and contamination can occur from such microscopic amounts, surely this makes it even MORE unlikely that the actual rapists DNA could have been utterly eroded, yet leaving behind enough of VS, MG and JH to still be detectable.

Just a thought.

[caz]

Hi Caz

Your points:-

1) Your verbal diarrhoea makes comprehension akin to wading through treacle.

2) Hanratty was only charged with murder, that of MG.

3) Why do you believe that the DNA evidence points so overwhelmingly to Hanratty's guilt?

4) Just because someone has never been on trial dosen't mean that they were not the perpetrators of a crime.

Hi Reg,

If your comprehension skills are really so poor that you couldn't cope with my latest post and respond to the point I was actually making, I'm frankly amazed that you were able to work out that Hanratty's appeal had failed.

How does what Hanratty was charged with - specifically - alter the fact that Alphon wasn't charged with the crime and therefore has no case to answer, either in law or in 'Reg reckons he dunnit' terms?

If you think it was unfair for the law to have fingered Hanratty as a murderer, why do you think it's perfectly fair for you to finger Alphon as one, when you have no case against him, never mind one that could be considered 'beyond reasonable doubt'?

Are you not seeking to replace a perceived miscarriage of justice with one of your own, by fingering a man who is not, and has never been on trial for the A6 murder?

It's a simple enough question, and one you keep dodging. But don't worry, because it's all good evidence of what 'Reg's Principles of Fair Play' amount to.

I understood your question and here's my answer (although I could have sworn I've addressed this one before).

My attitude towards the DNA evidence is that it is up to those who challenge the appeal ruling (on the stated grounds of "I still reckon he was innocent") to provide a remotely plausible 'innocent' explanation for the specific findings.

Good luck - with finding out what remotely plausible means.

Love,

Caz
X

[Victor]

Blimey, is there no end to your zealous crusade to rid the planet of jimdidnotdoitites? I am now lower than a Holocaust Denier!

Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition! What next? I'll be accused of being a communist!

Victor, you are starting to sound like Senator McCarthy. What next, the UnJimDidIt Activities Comittee?

Blacklist me you fascist.

Reg,

Why can't you justify your opinions rather than the pointless abuse, which reinforces the original statement I made... If you can't argue eloquently then you may as well get lumped in with all those with ridiculous beliefs, like Holocaust Deniers.

I never said you were "lower than a Holocaust Denier", what I actually said was Holocaust Deniers are ridiculous, they have ridiculous opinions, and IF you aren't going to discuss things reasonably, then you are being equally ridiculous.

Grow up.

KR,
Vic.

So you are just not going to answer questions which cast serious doubts over your stated beliefs. You have opinions but are unable to defend them. That's tantamount to being ridiculous.

At least Holocaust deniers try to defend their ridiculous viewpoint.

Blimey, is there no end to your zealous crusade to rid the planet of jimdidnotdoitites? I am now lower than a Holocaust Denier!

Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition! What next? I'll be accused of being a communist!

Victor, you are starting to sound like Senator McCarthy. What next, the UnJimDidIt Activities Comittee?

Blacklist me you fascist.

[Victor]

You can take it with whipped cream and chocolate sprinkles on top if it makes you happy. I have no reason to change my view that Hanratty is innocent and certainly not through any arguments put forward by you.

So you are just not going to answer questions which cast serious doubts over your stated beliefs. You have opinions but are unable to defend them. That's tantamount to being ridiculous.

At least Holocaust deniers try to defend their ridiculous viewpoint.

Should I take that as an admission of your acceptance of Hanratty's guilt?

You can take it with whipped cream and chocolate sprinkles on top if it makes you happy. I have no reason to change my view that Hanratty is innocent and certainly not through any arguments put forward by you.

[Victor]

So what are you worrying about then, me old fruit.

Should I take that as an admission of your acceptance of Hanratty's guilt?