A6 Murder DNA evidence

[Victor]

Hi all,

Reg, are you including in the CSI effect the fact that some seem to take "the chances of the profile belonging to anyone else was 1 in 40 million" being equivalent to "there's only a 1 in 40 million chance of X not being the criminal"? as they are very very different.

You raised a couple of interesting points:-
Mixed profiles - Simpson and Hoey had mixed profiles including contamination profiles, whereas Hanratty had only 3 profiles (which links to Dupplin Muir's post). I've seen Gregsten's profile "overlooked" as in identified and eliminated and have wondered whether any lab technician's (or Jennifer Wiles') profiles have been treated in a similar way, but there is no evidence for this.
MG's profile - where did it come from? In 1997 they used JH's mother and brother for comparison purposes, maybe the used MG's children?
Whitaker seems to be what can only be described as arrogant in the extreme - and certainly his behaviour taints his evidence but I don't think we've got to the Prof-Meadows-lying-to-cover-failings stage.
Costs - any argument is more general than specific to this case as it would seem to apply to all sorts of investigative techniques, like fingerprinting and blood types.

DM,
Just need to highlight this..."The problem with the DNA results in the A6 case is that they are just too convenient: Gregsten's, Storie's, Hanratty's and no-one else's!". Too convenient indeed, but there's the possibility that any contamination 40 years ago would have decayed to the point of below minimum detection limits, and the indications of only examining the liquid stains on the knicker fragment mitigate against this.

Stephen Fry and the QI Team have stated that dust isn't even mostly skin cells but I'd need to check that, or at least find a source.

Also the second paragraph is weakened by the fact that any contaminant DNA profiles would need to be identified if possible - samples from all the present day technicians would be available.

Vic

ps. I had a great holiday thank you - it wasn't with XL fortunately.

[JamesDean]

Consider the DNA profiles of Valerie Storie and Michael Gregsten as mention in the Court of Appeal judgement. How were these obtained? In the case of Valerie Storie that would not be difficult as she is still alive (does anyone have any information as to when this was done?) but how did the FSS obtain a certain profile of Mike's? (any help here? I am sure that someone has mentioned it on here or in the other place). His body was not exhumed to my knowledge.

Hi Reg,

You raise a good point about the DNA of Michael Gregsten. I had already noted (to myself) the somewhat unusual phrasing of certain references in the text of the judgment to the Gregsten forensic evidence.

Here are the relevant paragraphs and the text referencing Gregsten's DNA is highlighted by me for clarity:-

113. The knickers arrived at the Metropolitan Police Laboratory (MPL) on
23 August 1961 where they were examined by Dr Nickolls, the director and his
assistant, Henry Howard. They were found to be stained with seminal fluid in
the area of the crotch and at the back for five inches upwards from the crotch.
Vaginal fluid from Valerie Storie was also present. There were smaller
quantities of seminal fluid of blood group AB assumed to have come at some
earlier stage from Michael Gregsten. Although the laboratory records are not
dated, the notes are numbered sequentially and we are confident that the
knickers were examined almost immediately and in any event no later than
23 September 1961 when the notes show that certain samples taken from Peter
Alphon were examined at the laboratory. The handkerchief came to the
laboratory on 25 August, was screened for blood and semen and, none being
found, seems to have been put to one side.

125. But that is to ignore the results of the DNA profiling. 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. 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. Finally, we must visualise a pattern which
is wholly consistent with sexual intercourse having taken place in which Valerie
Storie and James Hanratty were the participants.

Note the use of the word assumed in paragraph 113 and attributed in paragraph 125.

I'm not convinced that Gregsten's DNA was ever positively identified.

Any thoughts?

Regards
James

[Dupplin Muir]

Missing DNA

Hello Victor

You make an interesting point, but not perhaps in the way you intended. It seems that contamination of DNA evidence is the norm, even today when the police and forensic scientists are aware of the need to avoid it. Yet we are meant to believe that nearly 50 years ago, when no-one had any idea about DNA testing, the cops and forensics people managed to avoid leaving any of their DNA on the samples! Also, what about DNA from other people who had been in the car prior to the crime? People shed skin-cells constantly (I've heard it claimed that most household dust actually consists of such skin-cells!), and even if the car had been thoroughly valeted it would not get rid of all this extraneous DNA.

The problem with the DNA results in the A6 case is that they are just too convenient: Gregsten's, Storie's, Hanratty's and no-one else's! From the prosecution's point of view, to admit that (say) three other sets Of DNA had been found would allow Hanratty's team to argue that since there has clearly been contamination, perhaps Hanratty's DNA is part of that contamination, and that the killer is one of the three unknowns. Also, as Reg has pointed out, there was very little of Hanratty's DNA present (otherwise they would not have needed to use LCN) so the prosecution could not argue on a quantitative basis.

As for Dr Whitaker being willing to accept the possibility of contamination in the Templeton Wood trial, I imagine this is rather different from accepting contamination where it might imply that an innocent man was hanged, especially given the reluctance of the authorities to acknowledge that they have ever convicted an innocent person, much less executed one.

It also seems that while Dr Whitaker is indeed very well-regarded by police and prosecutors, he is not thought of quite so highly by other DNA specialists.

DM

Hi Vic
Hope you had a nice holiday. (not with XL I hope!!)

Re your post #60

The main difference with this case (Simpson) compared to Hanratty as you correctly say is the direct route of contamination.
It is my view, and it has been corroborated by Professor Allan Jamieson that the vast majority of analysts working in criminal DNA analysis are employed by the FSS. It has been difficult (and I hate the term whistleblower) for defence teams in legal cases to obtain genuinely top class expert advice and witnesses as nearly all of them, hitherto, worked for the prosecution.
I believe that this was the case in Hanratty. I mean no detriment to Dr Martin Evison, the appellants expert witness in Hanratty (2002), but was he truly an expert in advanced DNA techniques and the problems involved, at that time? I don't think so. He only set up his RCHI program at the University of Sheffield in 2004.

Dr Evisons page at UCL (University of London, visiting) can be found at;

http://www.jdi.ucl.ac.uk/cs_network/cs_contacts/evison.php

By the time of the Simpson and Hoey cases (2007) the defence teams could call on Professor Jamieson's Forensic Institute team to give both expert advice and defence witness testimony about LCN DNA.

Whereas in Hoey and Simpson the problems of mixed profiles were exposed, this was not done in Hanratty, although similar mixed profiles must have existed due to the very nature of the technique used.
Consider the DNA profiles of Valerie Storie and Michael Gregsten as mention in the Court of Appeal judgement. How were these obtained? In the case of Valerie Storie that would not be difficult as she is still alive (does anyone have any information as to when this was done?) but how did the FSS obtain a certain profile of Mike's? (any help here? I am sure that someone has mentioned it on here or in the other place). His body was not exhumed to my knowledge.

Therefore, why have you exclaimed "The prosecution had stated that the chances of the profile belonging to anyone else other than Mr Simpson was 1 in 40 million!"? I'm convinced that the profile was Simpsons, it's just we know how it got there.

I was only quoting from newspaper reports on the case. But I assume that because the DNA evidence was all the prosecution had to go on they had to make the most of it. This was reinforced by Dr Whitaker who stuck to his guns and stated that he stood by what he had said. This was, I again assume, part of the CSI effect that DNA seems to have on juries.

I do not have access to the transcript of the Simpson case (yet) but here is what Justice Weir had to say about Dr Whitaker in his judgement in Hoey (2007 paragraph 63 (in full))

I was concerned about the manner and content of the response of Dr Whitaker to these criticisms. He was most unwilling to accept that the continuing absence of international agreement on validation of LCN (unlike SGM+)or the variations in the way in which it was being implemented in different countries should be any impediment to the ready acceptance by any court of the Birmingham approach. I found him inappropriately combative as an expert witness and his unwillingness to debate constructively the various matters put to him was unhelpful in the extreme. By contrast, his colleague Dr Gill, while understandably concerned to endorse the views of Dr Whitaker where he properly could, was willing to carefully consider the propositions put to him by Mr Pownall QC and, where appropriate, to disagree with his colleague on important issues both general and specific to the case. In my view it was extremely fortunate that the prosecution decided late in the day to call Dr Gill as his evidence greatly helped to inform and bring some objectivity to the debate.

Again as with the cost of the DNA analysis, I was only quoting from newspaper reports of the Simpson case. Bearing in mind that the case was not initiated from police investigation but from purely a cold case DNA gamble (match to taxi drivers from the DNA database) it does seem in this case that the gamble was an expensive one. Also this was just the cost of the DNA work, not the whole cost of the case which I cannot find (as yet).
The one thing I would say here is that if DNA evidence is the starting block for initiating an expensive investigation, with all of the expectations of the victims loved ones and anxiety of the accused (and thier loved ones) accrued then I say no.

I cannot help you any further with the internal standards of replication although PCR is the replication/amplification phenomena used in all SGM/LCN/LT techniques. Hope that helps?

Kind regards
Reg

[Victor]

Hi all,

Re: Templeton Woods Murders

Reading through Reg's post the details given make complete sense and the correct verdict was reached - why it should take as long as 3 hours I don't know.

I can see similarities to the Hanratty case but there are enough differences to limit direct comparison, the main one being a confirmed route of contamination which Dr Whitaker acknowledged. From http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/...al/7113322.stm
"Mr Stewart also said that other hair and DNA traces had been found. The DNA they yielded matched police officers, a forensic scientist and a pathologist." Therefore we have at least 4 other contaminant profiles (assuming at least 2 police officers) Compare this to Hanratty where there is no indication of any contamination whatsoever from the scientists\technicians.

Therefore, why have you exclaimed "The prosecution had stated that the chances of the profile belonging to anyone else other than Mr Simpson was 1 in 40 million!"? I'm convinced that the profile was Simpsons, it's just we know how it got there.

That case casts no shadow over Dr Whitaker or the technique, he is a "World renowned forensic scientist" [quote from link above] and gave evidence concerning the science and in the process admitted the possibility of contamination, he did not give evidence on the legal or criminal aspects.

The cost of the case is high, but not relevant unless you are using it to suggest that DNA should never be investigated as it is prohibitively expensive, otherwise it should be used in every case where there is forensic evidence. All or nothing.

Are you talking about replicate samples or PCR amplification?

Neither, I was referring to internal standards (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internal_standard) as an attempt to quantify each of the 34 stages of replication.

Kind regards,
Vic.

[caz]

You plainly do not understand the science and I put it further that you have not done any in depth research into the so called science that caused the Hanratty appeal to fail. For that I feel a little disappointed as anyone would when debating a subject when the opposition just turns up and starts throwing insults around.

Therefore you have no authority to tell me what is right or wrong.

So until you come up with some valid arguments why don't you just go away and keep your petty bigotry to yourself. You obviously have no intention of taking your head out of the sand and thinking for yourself. People like you believe any old crap that is placed before them and buy it as the new religion. So called advances in DNA technology just happens to be one of them.

Reg

Hi Reg,

Read the above - your own words - and then tell me just who is the one here 'throwing insults around'. I don't believe I've insulted you once, but if you think I have then it was not my intention. If you are this quick to take offence then maybe the message boards are not a good place for you.

I may not understand the science that 'caused the Hanratty appeal to fail' (or more accurately, the science used to support the original conviction). And I certainly haven't got any authority to tell you what to believe or what's right or wrong. But as things stand I don't have to believe anything, know anything, or try to convince you of anything, since I'm not the one claiming anything. You are. You are claiming that the DNA evidence should have been ruled inadmissible, because you have invested too much faith in Hanratty's innocence to consider that it could be reliably telling you that he was guilty after all. Your problem, not mine.

I actually feel for you because it must be terribly frustrating not to have been actively involved in the appeal, so you could have authoritatively explained to everyone else why the DNA evidence was fatally flawed and the conclusions reached from it nonsensical. If this is all too obvious to anyone who knows about the science involved, then it's all the more astonishing that the result didn't cause much more of an uproar than it did, and you are now reduced to arguing the toss about it on a Jack the Ripper message board with some thick tart who knows nothing.

Maybe all those who might have joined your fight against this travesty are too busy condemning science for its failure to link MMR jabs with autism, while children everywhere are left to hurtle back to the bad old days of the measles.

Love,

Caz
X

I thought this was a thread purely started to debate the validity and integrity or otherwise of the DNA evidence in the Hanratty case. As such, I am (still) trying to ascertain whether you reject all verdicts across the board if they are based on DNA evidence, or just the verdicts you disagree with personally for other, non-forensic reasons.

The Taft case merely illustrates that DNA can be identified correctly (although it doesn't necessarily mean the evidence is only capable of one interpretation) - which means that despite all the protests and condescending remarks about who knows what they are talking about and who doesn't, you've still got a long way to go to show that the DNA on the victim's knickers was attributed to JH incorrectly (but correctly to VS and MG) and that someone else raped and shot her, and we are therefore dealing with a case of misidentification or contamination, semen doing Houdini impressions, or various conspirators from the rotten criminal classes and the even more rotten establishment. I don't have to know much about science to know that much. So please don't assume you can blind me with it. You're the one with your work cut out to fight what science has concluded here, not me.

Love,

Caz
X

Yes and a thread that was started as you (post #3) stated;

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.

and Victor (post #4);

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

No I don't reject DNA evidence in convictions or acquittals across the board. I have already said so. You should read my posts more closely or avoid coming into debates in mid session.

You plainly do not understand the science and I put it further that you have not done any in depth research into the so called science that caused the Hanratty appeal to fail. For that I feel a little disappointed as anyone would when debating a subject when the opposition just turns up and starts throwing insults around.

Therefore you have no authority to tell me what is right or wrong.

So until you come up with some valid arguments why don't you just go away and keep your petty bigotry to yourself. You obviously have no intention of taking your head out of the sand and thinking for yourself. People like you believe any old crap that is placed before them and buy it as the new religion. So called advances in DNA technology just happens to be one of them.

Reg

[caz]

Hi Reg,

Horrible case - and of course the worst thing about it is that the killer got away with it, whoever he was.

Good grief!

I only asked if you had looked at the Taft case just out of a general interest, maybe, possibly in a possible miscarriage of justice. Nothing more sinister then that. You do get carried away. You seem to see things that are plainly not there. I wonder what is the point of continuing in arguing the toss with you anymore.
You plainly do not know what you are talking about with regards to the science (you are not alone there either) and you keep banging on about anyone not ever being able to prove such and such's innocence or guilt or whatever. I think we know that.
So what have you got to say that brings anything new to the argument. I haven't seen anything yet that has been truly revelatory.
I posted irrelevant material on the main A6 thread about favourite jury/trials films and you answered and didn't think that was irrelevant. Make up your mind eh!
In fact until anyone posts anything interesting I will be working on my life size matchstick model of George W Bush.

Sorry I spoke, I'm sure!

I thought this was a thread purely started to debate the validity and integrity or otherwise of the DNA evidence in the Hanratty case. As such, I am (still) trying to ascertain whether you reject all verdicts across the board if they are based on DNA evidence, or just the verdicts you disagree with personally for other, non-forensic reasons.

The Taft case merely illustrates that DNA can be identified correctly (although it doesn't necessarily mean the evidence is only capable of one interpretation) - which means that despite all the protests and condescending remarks about who knows what they are talking about and who doesn't, you've still got a long way to go to show that the DNA on the victim's knickers was attributed to JH incorrectly (but correctly to VS and MG) and that someone else raped and shot her, and we are therefore dealing with a case of misidentification or contamination, semen doing Houdini impressions, or various conspirators from the rotten criminal classes and the even more rotten establishment. I don't have to know much about science to know that much. So please don't assume you can blind me with it. You're the one with your work cut out to fight what science has concluded here, not me.

Love,

Caz
X

Templeton Woods Murders

Hi All

Templeton Woods Murders

In February 1980 a shy quiet 20 year old nursery nurse, Elizabeth McCabe, disappeared after a night out in Dundee. Just over two weeks later her body was found in the nearby Templeton Woods. A year before, the body of another woman, 18 year old Carol Lannen was found in the same woods. Miss Lannen's handbag was later discovered a fair distance away in Aberdeenshire.
Miss McCabe had been assaulted, beaten and strangled. Her handbag was found close to the home of a man known to Miss McCabe. It seemed that a serial killer was at large, although the police contrasted the lifestyles of both women by stating that Miss Lannen was working as a prostitute at the time of her death and therefore the killings were not officially connected.
Although the police sought many suspects, boyfriends and taxi drivers and items were taken as evidence, no evidence existed to connect anyone to either crime at the time. The case lay dormant until 2003.
In 2003, by chance, police came across the original evidence including Miss McCabes blue jumper, her jeans and a swab taken from her body. Other items such as her underwear and tights had gone missing.
DNA analysis was carried out by a Dr Jonathan Whitaker of the Forensic Science Service and was compared to the national DNA database. Focus was placed, as was done during the original investigation, on taxi drivers. A match was found belonging to a certain Vincent Simpson, who had had some previous minor convictions in his past, then living in Surrey who was indeed a taxi driver in Dundee at the time and claimed as an alibi that he was either at home, taxiing, or at a local casino. No other forensic or witness evidence was brought against Mr Simpson. The prosecution indeed in their closing statement advised the jury that to convict they must take the DNA evidence to be enough!
Mr Simpsons DNA had been found on Miss McCabes belongings and had, the defence claimed, got there via contamination with items taken from him at the time of the original investigation.
Mark Stewart QC for the defence confronted Dr Whitaker on the reason for Mr Simpsons DNA being present and Dr Whitaker agreed that contamination was a distinct possiblility yet stood by his original findings despite mixed profiles existing. The prosecution had stated that the chances of the profile belonging to anyone else other than Mr Simpson was 1 in 40 million!
In closing Mr Stewart said;
"Vincent Simpson had the misfortune to have material with his DNA on it taken possession of by police at the time." He claimed DNA partly matching Mr Simpson's profile, found on the jumper draped over Ms McCabe's body, got there because items of evidence were badly stored. He went on "They would have been better taking a blender, putting it all in and firing it up," said the lawyer. "The DNA originated from Mr Simpson. Where it originated from is one question but it gives no clue to the question in this case: How did it get where it was found?" Mr Stewart continued: "Contamination in this case, ladies and gentlemen, is a real and live issue. I think, ladies and gentlemen, there is ample evidence of contamination but I don't have to prove it. The Crown have to negate it."
The jury took just 3 hours to acquit Mr Simpson.
The amount of money spent by the police on DNA testing in this case has been estimated at perhaps near to one million pounds.

Food for thought eh!

Don't have nightmares
Reg

Do you know if they use internal standards to measure the success of each replication step?

Hi Victor
I am not quite sure what you mean here.
Are you talking about replicate samples or PCR amplification?
Reg

[Victor]

My Dubya is coming along nicely...it's already more intelligent than the real thing

It started out more intelligent as a tree - shame someone felt the need to cut it down and chop it to bits.

With regard to a quantitation step as put forward by the Forensic Institute, it means setting a standard allele threshold level of however many rfu's (Relative Fluorescent Unit) (SGM+ is set at 150rfu's) so that one replicate sample from one lab can be judged against another in another lab, rather than each lab arbitrarily setting their own. This is therefore a quantitation in terms of measurement through precise calibration of equipment across the board.
Comparison of ratios is just the application of natural number and their operations to ascertain size (quantity in that respect).

Do you know if they use internal standards to measure the success of each replication step?

I've got a five year old pair of pants with quite a large visible stain on them. You are welcome to stick them under a UV lamp if you so wish. It is not quite 5 inches up the back but you could factor in the rest.

Is it stained with semen and vaginal fluids? Not sure I'm interested if it isn't, actually I'm positive I'm not interested anyway!!! There are fetish websites where you could sell them for a furtune.

all, have a good week, I certainly intend to.

Hi Victor
Have a nice holiday.

My Dubya is coming along nicely...it's already more intelligent than the real thing

With regard to a quantitation step as put forward by the Forensic Institute, it means setting a standard allele threshold level of however many rfu's (Relative Fluorescent Unit) (SGM+ is set at 150rfu's) so that one replicate sample from one lab can be judged against another in another lab, rather than each lab arbitrarily setting their own. This is therefore a quantitation in terms of measurement through precise calibration of equipment across the board.
Comparison of ratios is just the application of natural number and their operations to ascertain size (quantity in that respect).
I've got a five year old pair of pants with quite a large visible stain on them. You are welcome to stick them under a UV lamp if you so wish. It is not quite 5 inches up the back but you could factor in the rest.

Regards
Reg

You’re at it again! It’s highly misleading because I don’t think anyone has disputed the fact that miscarriages of justice can and do happen, and for all sorts of reasons. So why bring up one case of 'possible' miscarriage that has bugger all to do with DNA testing techniques, but is wholly concerned with whether the semen confirmed by DNA analysis to be Taft’s (beyond reasonable doubt because Taft himself admitted to leaving some!) could have been deposited innocently or only within the context of the murder? It's simply not relevant to this discussion.

Good grief!

I only asked if you had looked at the Taft case just out of a general interest, maybe, possibly in a possible miscarriage of justice. Nothing more sinister then that. You do get carried away. You seem to see things that are plainly not there. I wonder what is the point of continuing in arguing the toss with you anymore.
You plainly do not know what you are talking about with regards to the science (you are not alone there either) and you keep banging on about anyone not ever being able to prove such and such's innocence or guilt or whatever. I think we know that.
So what have you got to say that brings anything new to the argument. I haven't seen anything yet that has been truly revelatory.
I posted irrelevant material on the main A6 thread about favourite jury/trials films and you answered and didn't think that was irrelevant. Make up your mind eh!
In fact until anyone posts anything interesting I will be working on my life size matchstick model of George W Bush.

[Victor]

Hi Victor

I haven't had time to post in the last couple of days as I have to work occasionally. As you are about to go on holiday I thought I would post a quickie and wish you a happy holiday! I expect we shall resume 'pistols at dawn' when you return but hopefully not.

Cheers James,

As you have just pointed out, the knicker fragment would have been washed to extract any DNA into a solution. What then is meant by a 'typical distribution of male and female DNA'? It's a vague statement that is subject to interpretation.

The distribution of material on the fragment may be a typical distribution of semen and vaginal fluid following an act of sexual intercourse but you can't 'see' the DNA and generate a profile, or profiles, until after the DNA has been extracted into a solution and subjected to 34 PCR cycles to amplify it. How then can Dr Whitaker refer to a typical distribution of male and female DNA etc? It's floating around in a solution!

Something for you to think about.

That's an important point, is it distribution meaning ratio, but that would mean that the test was quantitative - which of course Reg has pointed out that it isn't quantitative.

Or is it distribution meaning configuration on the material - which could only be done if the fragment was washed in a section by section manner - and although they do do it twice, there's no indication that they were any more specific than that.

Or it could mean a physical (maybe under UV-light) examination of the fragment, to see where the staining was. In my experience semen and vaginal fluids do visibly stain material, but I've no idea whether the stain fades or becomes more prominent over time, especially as long as 40 years. We do have the 5 inches up the back comment to factor in.

Just to clarify the history of the fragment. The fragment 'discovered' in 1991 is not the same piece of crotch exhibited at the trial. Presumably that was destroyed with other items in April 1962 after the demise of James Hanratty. Part of the rediscovered fragment, that had lain dormant in a laboratory file, was used in the 1995 test that was unsuccessful. The 1997 test used the remaining part of the fragment so I guess we could refer to this as a fragment of a fragment. I expect it was quite small but how small I could not say with any accuracy. The 2000 test was only performed on parts exhumed from James Hanratty's body and this was compared with the profile obtained in the 1997 test.

Regards
James

I believe that the fragment was cut from the crotch, and only the remainder of the knickers were exhibited at the trial and subsequently destroyed. What I don't know is whether the original fragment was further divided for the 95 test, nor what remained for the 97 test, it'd be interesting to find out.

Of course the timeline you've indicated does mean that the fragment was never in contact with JH's DNA from the exhumed body, eliminating one possible source of contamination, because they didn't have a sample of it until 2000.

[JamesDean]

On the other thread you asked whether the technique is destructive. The answer is "sort of", the fragment is washed to extract the DNA into a liquid medium, therefore the knicker fragment is not destroyed, but most of the DNA on it is washed off. Note that it's "most of" if the detection technique improves then it may be possible in the future to detect whos DNA remains on it, but the technique used would need to be massively more sensitive. I do not know if the entire fragment was washed in either of the DNA tests.

Hi Victor

I haven't had time to post in the last couple of days as I have to work occasionally. As you are about to go on holiday I thought I would post a quickie and wish you a happy holiday! I expect we shall resume 'pistols at dawn' when you return but hopefully not.

On the subject of the knicker fragment you have touched on a point I was going to raise. It relates to the question I posed to Caz about this passage in the judgment to which you have also referred ...

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.

As you have just pointed out, the knicker fragment would have been washed to extract any DNA into a solution. What then is meant by a 'typical distribution of male and female DNA'? It's a vague statement that is subject to interpretation.

The distribution of material on the fragment may be a typical distribution of semen and vaginal fluid following an act of sexual intercourse but you can't 'see' the DNA and generate a profile, or profiles, until after the DNA has been extracted into a solution and subjected to 34 PCR cycles to amplify it. How then can Dr Whitaker refer to a typical distribution of male and female DNA etc? It's floating around in a solution!

Something for you to think about.

Just to clarify the history of the fragment. The fragment 'discovered' in 1991 is not the same piece of crotch exhibited at the trial. Presumably that was destroyed with other items in April 1962 after the demise of James Hanratty. Part of the rediscovered fragment, that had lain dormant in a laboratory file, was used in the 1995 test that was unsuccessful. The 1997 test used the remaining part of the fragment so I guess we could refer to this as a fragment of a fragment. I expect it was quite small but how small I could not say with any accuracy. The 2000 test was only performed on parts exhumed from James Hanratty's body and this was compared with the profile obtained in the 1997 test.

Regards
James