A6 Murder DNA evidence

[caz]

Hi Folks,

I readily admit that I’m no scientist, but I can interpret the written word well enough to know when someone else is misinterpreting it. This could be because their language skills are not up to their scientific ones, but if it’s a case of trying to blind me with the science it won’t work.

ROGER MANN: We only have one profile. That profile matches James Hanratty. If that was a contaminant, if that was due to contamination we would expect two profiles, one from James Hanratty due to the contamination and one from the original killer.

As Vic has demonstrated, what is meant here is that they only have one profile that could be attributed to the guilty party. The profiles attributed to the two victims are irrelevant in the context of an observation that two ‘foreign’ profiles would be expected if Hanratty’s got on the knickers innocently, after the rapist had left his own guilty deposit there.

Through all of my research into DNA technology I have never come across a phenomenon whereby contaminate DNA masks other DNA; a mixed profile is what you would get.

Hi Reg,

With respect, isn’t this precisely why it was considered way beyond unlikely that Hanratty’s DNA got on the knickers innocently? Look again at the wording of the quote supplied by Vic:

For that not to be the case we would have to suppose that the DNA of the rapist, also of blood group O, had either degraded so as to become undetectable or had been masked by James Hanratty's DNA during the course of a contaminating event.

In other words, a scenario whereby Hanratty’s DNA could have contaminated the knickers and somehow masked the rapist’s DNA (and survived, alongside the DNA attributed to both victims, to provide a profile that matched - with no discrepancies - the one obtained from the hanky and identified as Hanratty’s) was simply not considered a viable option.

Nor was it considered reasonable to theorise that the rapist’s DNA had degraded beyond detection, while DNA of a similar age from three innocent parties had not. The only scenario left is the one where the offender’s semen was not even present on the fragment cut from the garment and retained.

If you want to suggest there were discrepancies, or that only a mixed profile could have been obtained from the knicker fragment (and the hanky too?) and the three individual profiles - no more, no less - could only have been arrived at and matched/identified using guesswork, would you put it down to incompetence or breathtaking dishonesty? And why did nobody at the time have sufficient expertise to wave a red flag over such clear, unequivocal findings if they were simply too good to be true?

Love,

Caz
X

[Victor]

I, along with JamesDean, DM and Sara have posted enough material on LCN DNA here for anyone who is willing to read them to form an opinion of concern over LCN's use in the criminal justice system.
If I find anything else of interest to post then I will and if someone new posts I will reply but until then there seems very little I can personally add.
reg

How very arrogant, speaking for 3 other people without their consent or any suggestion that they agree with what you've said.

In other words, you're giving up because your argument isn't strong enough to persuade me.

At least admit it, instead of giving superfluous reasons for not answering the many difficult questions that would undermine your argument.

KR,
Vic.

I, along with JamesDean, DM and Sara have posted enough material on LCN DNA here for anyone who is willing to read them to form an opinion of concern over LCN's use in the criminal justice system.
If I find anything else of interest to post then I will and if someone new posts I will reply but until then there seems very little I can personally add.
reg

[Victor]

Through all of my research into DNA technology I have never come across a phenomenon whereby contaminate DNA masks other DNA; a mixed profile is what you would get.

That would be where the DNA from one component is in such a high concentration compared to the other that the lesser component falls below your wonderful arbitary RFU threshold.

Were did the judges get this from to formulate the quoted scenario.

Simple, they don't, they reply on the experts to give their expert opinion.

I don't give a badgers chuff for the opinions of 3 ignorant appeal court judges when the science in this case is plainly lacking credibility in the wider world.

It's a good job that the science used in this case has got international recognition then.

The whole appeal was nothing more than a whitewash.

How? Why? For what purpose? What was the motive behind this?

Do you believe that Ronald Castree is guilty of the murder of Leslie Moleseed? He was convicted on the DNA evidence.

KR,
Vic.

Hi Victor,

I'll refer you to the transcript of the BBC Horizon documentary that was screened in May 2002 :-


ROGER MANN: We only have one profile. That profile matches James Hanratty. If that was a contaminant, if that was due to contamination we would expect two profiles, one from James Hanratty due to the contamination and one from the original killer.



regards,
James

Hi James,

The judgment talks about the possibility of a contamination event where Hanratty's DNA wipes out the rapist's DNA, but leaving VS and the DNA attributed to MG.



This obviously wouldn't make any sense if VS or MG's DNA wasn't detected.

KR,
Vic.

Roger Mann is a specialist advisor to the FSS. He liaises with SIO's as to what exhibits would best yield forensic samples. He gave expert witness testimony for the respondent at the appeal in 2002 yet this was only reported in the judgement in connection with the hanky.

Through all of my research into DNA technology I have never come across a phenomenon whereby contaminate DNA masks other DNA; a mixed profile is what you would get. Were did the judges get this from to formulate the quoted scenario. For starters all 3 all of them know absolutely nothing about the science of DNA to start with. Suddenly they are coming up with all sorts of new and previously unexplained reasons for a single profile to be gained. But that is not true either as in Victors quote from the judgement VS and MG's DNA is mentioned. How where 3 profiles accurately ascertained from the swabbing of the fragment?

I don't give a badgers chuff for the opinions of 3 ignorant appeal court judges when the science in this case is plainly lacking credibility in the wider world.

The whole appeal was nothing more than a whitewash.

reg

[Victor]

Hi James,

The judgment talks about the possibility of a contamination event where Hanratty's DNA wipes out the rapist's DNA, but leaving VS and the DNA attributed to MG.

For that not to be the case we would have to suppose that the DNA of the rapist, also of blood group O, had either degraded so as to become undetectable or had been masked by James Hanratty's DNA during the course of a contaminating event. Moreover, we would also have to suppose that Valerie Storie's DNA had remained in its original state, or at least detectable, and had escaped being overridden by DNA from James Hanratty. The same would have to be true of the DNA attributed to Michael Gregsten.

This obviously wouldn't make any sense if VS or MG's DNA wasn't detected.

KR,
Vic.

[jimarilyn]

Hi James,

Actually it's a bit ambiguous because they don't explicitly say they did or they didn't, however, they do include a reference to "DNA attributed to Michael Gregsten" which can be interpreted either way.

KR,
Vic.

Hi Victor,

I'll refer you to the transcript of the BBC Horizon documentary that was screened in May 2002 :-


ROGER MANN: We only have one profile. That profile matches James Hanratty. If that was a contaminant, if that was due to contamination we would expect two profiles, one from James Hanratty due to the contamination and one from the original killer.



regards,
James

[Victor]

Methinks you need to do your homework more carefully as there was only one male profile extracted from VS's knickers. I don't know where you get your information that MG's DNA was extracted from the fragment of knickers.

Hi James,

Actually it's a bit ambiguous because they don't explicitly say they did or they didn't, however, they do include a reference to "DNA attributed to Michael Gregsten" which can be interpreted either way.

KR,
Vic.

[jimarilyn]

Secondly, the match between hanky and knickers must either be some horrible mistake, or due to DNA from Hanratty having contaminated the latter to the extent that it survived for forty years alongside the DNA from VS and MG.

First of all, I'm not one of those people who like to pick people's posts to pieces (it's far too tiring, boring, time consuming and counter-productive) so I've just selected this particular paragraph.

Methinks you need to do your homework more carefully as there was only one male profile extracted from VS's knickers. I don't know where you get your information that MG's DNA was extracted from the fragment of knickers.

regards,
James

[caz]

Hi Vic,

Yes, hence the precarious position that anyone doing the framing would have left himself in, had Hanratty been able to prove he could not have been the rapist. A signature or ticket putting him in Rhyl or Liverpool would have done the trick. How was a framer to guess that Hanratty would have nothing tangible to show for his visit to northern parts, assuming they even knew what he had done and where he had been while the crime was taking place?

Questions would immediately have been asked about who Hanratty mixed with, who had a reason for trying - and failing - to frame him (with the evidence left on the bus and at the Vienna) and how in hell they obtained the murder weapon.

Presumably, the reasoning re the knicker fragment goes something like this:

Firstly, all the rapist's group O semen must either have been confined to the part of the garment thrown away (making the fragment worse than useless as a surviving piece of crime scene evidence) or his DNA must have degraded completely over the years, unlike that of his victim and that attributed to her lover.

Secondly, the match between hanky and knickers must either be some horrible mistake, or due to DNA from Hanratty having contaminated the latter to the extent that it survived for forty years alongside the DNA from VS and MG.

I don't know what the chances are of only the one rogue profile surviving that long and showing up, especially if it's argued that it came from something other than semen. Like what exactly?

Even if semen is conceded to be the source, I find it a huge stretch that an innocent man, wrongly convicted and hanged for want of a scribbled signature on a guest house register, would be so unlucky that an emission left on his trousers in innocent circumstances managed to find its way onto the victim's knickers and cling on for dear life, while the rapist himself, and anyone and everyone else who shed a cell in the knickers' direction since, failed to leave the least impression.

Love,

Caz
X

[Victor]

Indeed. Anyone arguing that an associate of Hanratty’s, with access to both his hanky and the murder weapon, planted them on the bus to frame him, must address the fact that it would all have come unstuck very quickly if he had not obliged with the right blood group (he could easily have been the only slightly less common group A) or had he been able to verify where he was when the gun was used. Either would have been beyond a framer's control, and would have put Hanratty in the clear and any known associates in a very precarious position.

Hi Caz,

As I've highlighted in your post, first this conspirator must get hold of the weapon! So if Hanratty wasn't the murderer then how did the France's or whoever get hold of it?

The other very interesting thing is the DNA results from the handkerchief - only Hanratty's profile detected and only in the mucus stained areas. This means that it's a perfect example of LCN working exactly as expected, no additional profiles from anyone, no lab tech's profiles, no profiles from all those people who supposedly handled it at the trial, no profiles from degredation, no allelic drop-ins or drop-outs, no profiles from Edwin Cooke - the immaculate example of LCN working!

So if it worked perfectly with the hanky, why shouldn't it work just as well with the knicker fragment?

KR,
Vic.

[caz]

Hi All,

Happy New Year!

I'm sure you can, with just a little effort. I'm sure you can tell everyone just what you yourself think this evidence was that convinced the jury. Unless perhaps you haven't read and studied any books on the matter........

RKO,
James

I too would like to know what evidence Caz thinks convinced the jury. For the life of me I have been struggling with this one for years. Nothing about the evidence convinces me.

Hi James & Reg,

Why is my opinion relevant? All I did was make the simple observation that the original jury found the evidence presented to them convincing enough to find the man (whose DNA was obtained years later from two pieces of physical evidence) guilty beyond reasonable doubt. You’d have to ask the jury members why they all found the case against him convincing at the time, and which aspects clinched it for them. I wasn’t there so I’m buggered if I know.

The respondents claimed that the contamination, if it ocurred, must have been semen. So the hanky could not have been the source of contamination, because, again according to the respondent, it was said to only contain a mucusy substance.

As has been put on numerous occasions, here and elsewhere, the hanky was Hanratty's, he said so in court. So his DNA would be expected to be on it.

Nobody knows the full lifecycle of the exhibits so for the court of appeal to conclude in summary that contamination was nothing more than theoretically possible is playing fast and loose with the known facts.

Reg, you kindly provided a link to the transcript of the 2002 BBC Horizon programme, from which I quote:

JOHN BARK: Exhumation did take place. We were able to obtain DNA from the remains and when we compare that DNA point by point with the DNA that we'd found on the handkerchief and on the knickers we found no discrepancies. We had a match there and therefore this considerably strengthened the evidence that we were looking at DNA from James Hanratty rather than anybody else in the population.

I really think you need to go back to basics here and remind yourself that if you’re happy with the hanky being Hanratty’s, and the contents of his nose providing a discrepancy-free, degradation-free DNA profile after 40 years, you have yet to provide a plausible explanation for a matching discrepancy-free profile turning up on the knicker fragment, if it wasn’t from the same man’s 40 year-old degradation-free semen stains.

If there is no actual evidence of contamination, how can it be anything more than 'theoretically' possible? What known facts are you playing fast and loose with to take it beyond that?

From this, cellophane or paper envelopes are unsuitable storage mechanisms for samples that are to be tested for DNA. Bacteria is certainly one agent that would lead to degradation in the case of the fragment of VS's knickers. How could a paper envelope or a cellophone wrap prevent bacterial attack at room temperature for nigh on 30 years? Tell me that Vic.

But the man was dead by 1962, so even if his DNA could have been transferred onto the knicker fragment via a contamination event involving his hanky or trousers, it very obviously didn’t become hopelessly degraded due to bacterial attack or anything else. So what is your preferred theory? That Hanratty’s DNA accidentally contaminated the knicker fragment and resisted degradation for 40 years? Or that degradation made it impossible for DNA from the knicker fragment to have been reliably matched with DNA from the hanky, or identified as Hanratty’s? Contamination or degradation?

In either case, of course, Hanratty could still have been the rapist, since your argument would rely on the rapist’s DNA being absent or unidentifiable.

You also gave us this:

68. LCN DNA profiling will often detect DNA completely unrelated to the crime. It sometimes detects DNA originating from people who had dealings with the exhibit before and after the crime and DNA from people involved in the manufacture of reagents and test equipment.

And as Victor has pointed out it’s entirely irrelevant, since the DNA detected in this case was Hanratty’s, who was related to the crime due to the inconvenient fact that a jury convicted him of it. Moreover, if unrelated DNA is ‘often’ detected by this technique, the fact that it wasn’t in this case doesn’t exactly support an argument for the hanky or knickers being subjected to wanton mishandling or careless storage procedures. Alarm bells might have rung had Hanratty’s DNA turned up among several completely unrelated profiles, but it seems to have stood out like a sore thumb, with only the victim’s - and that attributed to her lover - for company. I don’t see how that could be accounted for by contamination OR degradation; luck, guesswork or gross incompetence. And I don’t recommend blaming it on blatant manipulation and dishonesty either.

Conveniently ignoring how the hanky got wrapped round the gun in the first place presumably by the shadowy, mysterious conspirators...

Hi Victor,

Indeed. Anyone arguing that an associate of Hanratty’s, with access to both his hanky and the murder weapon, planted them on the bus to frame him, must address the fact that it would all have come unstuck very quickly if he had not obliged with the right blood group (he could easily have been the only slightly less common group A) or had he been able to verify where he was when the gun was used. Either would have been beyond a framer's control, and would have put Hanratty in the clear and any known associates in a very precarious position.

I will attempt to catch up with the main A6 thread soon, but I have an awful lot to wade through so I hope it will be worth it.

Love,

Caz
X

[Victor]

cellophane or paper envelopes are unsuitable storage mechanisms for samples that are to be tested for DNA.

From http://www.theforensicinstitute.com/...tement%202.pdf

This is simply scientifically unacceptable.

And Reg conveniently ignores:-

DNA has been extracted from mummies (albeit with mixed success), and profiles are routinely obtained in Medical Genetics from blood spots on card stored at room temperature that are at least 40 years old.

from the same source.

KR,
Vic.

[Victor]

From the link that I think Vic pointed out that I posted just before Xmas.

Aw is thinking that hard for you. I gave you a apecific post #141 to look at, this is displayed at the top of every post, so no more pathetic excuses.

This is from page 3 of Allan Jamieson's reply to Peter Gill during Hoey (3/12/06) - although Vic is plainly too lazy to do the work himself.

Too lazy to do what work?

Thats probably why he posts here when he should be doing work for his employer!!!

And here you make unfounded assumptions and contradict yourself.

I am doing work for my employer, and have breaks and freetime waiting for processes to complete, where I can pursue my own activities. More fool you for taking a job where you don't!

Now, are you going to answer those difficult questions or do they undermine your arguments so much that you're afraid to?

KR,
Vic.

[Victor]

From this, cellophane or paper envelopes are unsuitable storage mechanisms for samples that are to be tested for DNA. Bacteria is certainly one agent that would lead to degradation in the case of the fragment of VS's knickers. How could a paper envelope or a cellophone wrap prevent bacterial attack at room temperature for nigh on 30 years? Tell me that Vic.

Hi Reg,

Surely you are aware that cellophane blocks water and bacteria.

How are you proposing to get bacteria through the cellophane and onto the fragment to degrade the DNA?

Next.

KR,
Vic.

ps. Are you still scared of answering the other questions then?