A6 Murder DNA evidence

[Guest]

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

[reg1965]

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

[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

[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 Victor,

I'd go further and suggest that there is no case being made for Hanratty's innocence on the other thread if nobody is willing or able to argue against the DNA evidence over there.

'The experts could have got the scientific evidence wrong because they get it wrong in all sorts of other cases, so let's move on and pretend it doesn't make any difference' seems pretty lame to me.

Love,

Caz
X

[Victor]

Well if you ignore the DNA, then you can start hammering the one eyewitness who spent hours in a car with her attacker!

Or rely on a dodgy new alibi that appearred halfway through the investigation - thus proving that JH is a liar! What would have been next - Oh I wasn't in Liverpool, it was Rhyl... no not Rhyl, I mean Bridlington...erm Glasgow...

[reg1965]

It makes me laugh when I think of when the Hanratty did it brigade trot out the DNA proves it beyond doubt argument.

Why do you bother? What have you got to prove? You have believed all along that Hanratty was guilty so why get involved.

Are you trying to blind people with science and tell them that DNA testing is infallible along with the practitoners and thier clients? Or are you just patronising them? I am sure that I am not alone in thinking this. A lot of posters are getting fed up with it.

I don't buy any of the rubbish that the DNA proves it gang posts on here. I am even more sure that I am not alone in thinking this either.

I would need a hell of a lot more reliable evidence of someones guilt before I considered taking results from LCN thats for sure.

If you lot want the DNA argument back on the main thread who am I to stop you?
It's a free country, apparently!

Reg

[Victor]

You have believed all along that Hanratty was guilty so why get involved.

Lying again Reg.

[reg1965]

Lying again Reg.

All right then pal, why did you doubt JH's guilt and what evidence(s) changed your mind?

Reg

[jimarilyn]

It makes me laugh when I think of when the Hanratty did it brigade trot out the DNA proves it beyond doubt argument.

Why do you bother? What have you got to prove? You have believed all along that Hanratty was guilty so why get involved.

Are you trying to blind people with science and tell them that DNA testing is infallible along with the practitoners and thier clients? Or are you just patronising them? I am sure that I am not alone in thinking this. A lot of posters are getting fed up with it.

I don't buy any of the rubbish that the DNA proves it gang posts on here. I am even more sure that I am not alone in thinking this either.

I would need a hell of a lot more reliable evidence of someones guilt before I considered taking results from LCN thats for sure.

If you lot want the DNA argument back on the main thread who am I to stop you? It's a free country, apparently!Reg

Smack on Reg. An excellent post, you've hit the nail firmly on the head. Methinks someone was trying to bring to an end further open discussion on the A6 murder. A lot of people (both for and against Hanratty) are simply bored and switched off by the way individual (and slanted) interpretation of an official "report" (re. DNA evidence) has been allowed to take over an intriguing and fascinating case.

Victor gives himself away (post 6) with his strong anti-Hanratty bias, so any official statement advocating Hanratty's guilt is lapped up by him.
Caz, I couldn't help but notice, had submitted about 400 posts before she decided to start posting on this thread. I wonder why ? Had she suddenly become bored with the other threads she was on ?
As for Johnl, well his repetitive (and often angry) posts on the subject speak for themselves.

[caz]

Hi Reg,

Do you believe forensic evidence proved Stefan Kiszco innocent and that DNA evidence identified the real culprit?

Do you believe that anyone has been rightfully convicted as a direct result of forensic evidence? Or do you believe that all defendants should be given the benefit of the doubt and presumed innocent if a guilty verdict hinges on the forensics? Just trying to see where your logic leads you if it's just a case of not being able to trust science to get anything right.

By the way, I had no idea whether or not Hanratty was guilty until recently. I was eight when he was convicted, and my earliest memories were of my dad getting cross with the "lefties" who were suggesting "the murdering swine" was innocent. My reaction to dad's attitude was always to rebel against it. When he was called for jury service I joked that he might as well just post a 'Guilty!' note to the judge and have done with it. He tended to the view that innocent men don't find themselves in the dock.

As I learned more about cases of injustice I appreciated just how wrong dad was not to judge each case on its merits or otherwise, but to stick with his belief that the police and the courts could never do any wrong, and that "lefties" were always on the side of the criminal. When I learned more about the A6 murder case, and how Paul Foot was convinced that there had been a miscarriage of justice, I thought it would only be a matter of time before Hanratty's total innocence would be proven, or at the very least that his conviction would be declared unsafe.

Up until very recently I believed, like you, that the DNA evidence would no doubt turn out to have holes in it that you could drive a 36A bus through. But that was before I read (and I mean really read) all the details kindly supplied by our fellow posters. And try as I might I cannot see how any combination of framing or incompetence, concerning the acquisition, disposal, retention and contamination of evidence, could reasonably explain, or could reasonably have produced such a result.

That is where I stand right now, but unlike my dad I never say never. So if you or anyone else can come up with something better than "the science is always going to be inherently unreliable" I will be only too willing to listen and reconsider. That's why I'm still here. Thanks to daddy I have an inherent dislike of injustice and look for every loophole before feeling certain that justice has been done. If dad were here now, still proclaiming Hanratty's guilt, it would mean precious little. But when I reached the point of thinking he was indeed guilty beyond reasonable doubt, you can bet I didn't do so lightly.

Love,

Caz
X

[Victor]

Smack on Reg. An excellent post, you've hit the nail firmly on the head. Methinks someone was trying to bring to an end further open discussion on the A6 murder. A lot of people (both for and against Hanratty) are simply bored and switched off by the way individual (and slanted) interpretation of an official "report" (re. DNA evidence) has been allowed to take over an intriguing and fascinating case.

Victor gives himself away (post 6) with his strong anti-Hanratty bias, so any official statement advocating Hanratty's guilt is lapped up by him.
Caz, I couldn't help but notice, had submitted about 400 posts before she decided to start posting on this thread. I wonder why ? Had she suddenly become bored with the other threads she was on ?
As for Johnl, well his repetitive (and often angry) posts on the subject speak for themselves.

I've not seen another post that is as much sycophantic excrement as this.

I give myself away with my "strong anti-Hanratty bias" - what a joke, for the majority of my life I've thought Hanratty was innocent!

I'm a graduate chemist and capable of understanding the science, and have made my own mind up, instead of dogmatically clinging to the now unsupportable position of JH's innocence. I can validly argue the case against contamination, and for the LCN technique because I understand it.

I don't care whether you believe what myself and others say about the evidence or not, in fact I'd prefer it if you'd go through the evidence, absorb it and make your own mind up.

Instead you rashly abuse those who don't agree with your position (despite not being able to form a coherent case for it) and try to force your opinion on us. Just like the worst fundamentalists of every religion.

Caz has been on these boards for ages - note the "Casebook Supporter" flag she has - and contributes to many threads, including the A6 murder thread - her posts are usually well considered and informative.

Johnl has written some posts that I would describe as "frustrated" rather than "angry", but that's just my opinion.

All right then pal, why did you doubt JH's guilt and what evidence(s) changed your mind?

Reg

Well Reg, I would answer your question, but as it is more about the general A6 murder case rather than about the DNA evidence I think you've posted it on the wrong thread

[reg1965]

Hi Reg,

Do you believe forensic evidence proved Stefan Kiszco innocent and that DNA evidence identified the real culprit?

Do you believe that anyone has been rightfully convicted as a direct result of forensic evidence? Or do you believe that all defendants should be given the benefit of the doubt and presumed innocent if a guilty verdict hinges on the forensics? Just trying to see where your logic leads you if it's just a case of not being able to trust science to get anything right.

By the way, I had no idea whether or not Hanratty was guilty until recently. I was eight when he was convicted, and my earliest memories were of my dad getting cross with the "lefties" who were suggesting "the murdering swine" was innocent. My reaction to dad's attitude was always to rebel against it. When he was called for jury service I joked that he might as well just post a 'Guilty!' note to the judge and have done with it. He tended to the view that innocent men don't find themselves in the dock.

As I learned more about cases of injustice I appreciated just how wrong dad was not to judge each case on its merits or otherwise, but to stick with his belief that the police and the courts could never do any wrong, and that "lefties" were always on the side of the criminal. When I learned more about the A6 murder case, and how Paul Foot was convinced that there had been a miscarriage of justice, I thought it would only be a matter of time before Hanratty's total innocence would be proven, or at the very least that his conviction would be declared unsafe.

Up until very recently I believed, like you, that the DNA evidence would no doubt turn out to have holes in it that you could drive a 36A bus through. But that was before I read (and I mean really read) all the details kindly supplied by our fellow posters. And try as I might I cannot see how any combination of framing or incompetence, concerning the acquisition, disposal, retention and contamination of evidence, could reasonably explain, or could reasonably have produced such a result.

That is where I stand right now, but unlike my dad I never say never. So if you or anyone else can come up with something better than "the science is always going to be inherently unreliable" I will be only too willing to listen and reconsider. That's why I'm still here. Thanks to daddy I have an inherent dislike of injustice and look for every loophole before feeling certain that justice has been done. If dad were here now, still proclaiming Hanratty's guilt, it would mean precious little. But when I reached the point of thinking he was indeed guilty beyond reasonable doubt, you can bet I didn't do so lightly.

Love,

Caz
X

Hi Caz
What an excellent post.
I don't jump all over science or experts at every possible available juncture. I am a scientist myself - computer science - I am a software engineer and am currently doing MSc research work. I am well aware of the exactitude that must be employed when developing computer systems that critically must be nye on foolproof (this is extremely difficult to achieve within timescales and available resources). Just take for instance the software that modern civil aircraft rely on!
If I see something that doesn't make sense I would like to investigate it and judge it on its merits, and in each case.

DNA is the most scientifically sound forensic evidence that could be put before a jury and I am sure that many people have been correctly convicted with the aid of this science. Through the research I have done into the Hanratty DNA I must say that I have a very good reason for doubt.

The reason is the involvement of Dr Johnathan Whitaker in it! I would not trust this man as far as I could throw him (and I am a quite a big bloke!). His LCN technique and the expert evidence he gives is being quite seriously questioned by a myriad of accredited international independent forensic DNA experts. I have posted about this on several occasions.

It smacks of the nonsense that Roy Meadows used to spout about cot death and shaken baby syndrome which caused so much grief to so many families.

I look at cases where forensic (or other) evidence just does not add up.

By the way have you had a look into the John Taft case? A different take on the power of DNA evidence to convict.

Regards
Reg

[jimarilyn]

I've not seen another post that is as much sycophantic excrement as this.

I give myself away with my "strong anti-Hanratty bias" - what a joke, for the majority of my life I've thought Hanratty was innocent!

I'm a graduate chemist and capable of understanding the science, and have made my own mind up, instead of dogmatically clinging to the now unsupportable position of JH's innocence. I can validly argue the case against contamination, and for the LCN technique because I understand it.

I don't care whether you believe what myself and others say about the evidence or not, in fact I'd prefer it if you'd go through the evidence, absorb it and make your own mind up.

Instead you rashly abuse those who don't agree with your position (despite not being able to form a coherent case for it) and try to force your opinion on us. Just like the worst fundamentalists of every religion.

Caz has been on these boards for ages - note the "Casebook Supporter" flag she has - and contributes to many threads, including the A6 murder thread - her posts are usually well considered and informative.

Johnl has written some posts that I would describe as "frustrated" rather than "angry", but that's just my opinion.


Well Reg, I would answer your question, but as it is more about the general A6 murder case rather than about the DNA evidence I think you've posted it on the wrong thread

Looks like I've touched a raw nerve.

[Victor]

Looks like I've touched a raw nerve.

So are you going to respond?