A6 Murder DNA evidence

[Victor]

Please supply the reference to the source of this revelation.

Link in post #111

My comment post #114

Link -> http://www.scientific.org/tutorials/...ley/riley.html
See section entitled:- Analysis of Separated Sperm and Non-Sperm Fractions.

ps you spelt masturbated wrong. Talk about w**k*rs!

Blah. I couldn't be bothered to go round pointing out your numerous spelling mistakes and typos - and don't forget about your wonderful mistake near the beginning of this thread!

KR,
Vic.

[caz]

I'd be very interested to hear just what this evidence was.

Hi James,

Sorry, I thought you knew far more about the case than I do. If you don't know what convinced the jury (whether we think it should have done or not), then I can't help you.

Hi Victor,

Well thank you very much. You got Reg so excited there, because he evidently has more reason to know how to spell that word than you do, that it took his eye completely off the ball and he once again failed to answer my questions.

Now then Reg, get your hands out of your pockets and give me some straight answers.

Was the DNA evidence in this case inevitably going to be 'next to useless' because it was 'nigh on forty years old'* and would have degraded beyond anyone's ability to distinguish the rapist from a cat burglar, randy lab technician or my cat, as your latest mission would appear to suggest?

Or would you now be holding it up as the bees' knees if only it had produced a match with Alphon instead?

And how do you explain the matching DNA obtained from hankie and knicker fragment? If you have shot the semen-contaminated trouser theory to pieces and tossed it into the bin (see above*), your mission will now be to turn this match into a mismatch.

Good luck.

Love,

Caz
X

[Victor]

You reveal your true colours by this post Victor.

Blah.

Tony can happily invent conversations between Baz and Oxo and you comment on how insightful and wonderful they are. And yet when I try and give a possible explanation for how Hanratty's DNA managed to get on a hanky and his semen on a fragment of knickers you think this shows something about my nature? I'd love an explanation for that.

KR,
Vic.

[caz]

Hi Victor,

Maybe it has something to do with the old saying:

Too much faith makes you go blind.

Love,

Caz
X

[Victor]

Hi Caz,

I wonder where my Captain Pugwash videos went...

I hope you all have a great Christmas and New Year, I'm off for a couple of weeks shortly...

KR,
Vic.

[jimarilyn]

Blah.

Tony can happily invent conversations between Baz and Oxo and you comment on how insightful and wonderful they are. And yet when I try and give a possible explanation for how Hanratty's DNA managed to get on a hanky and his semen on a fragment of knickers you think this shows something about my nature? I'd love an explanation for that.

KR,
Vic.

I noticed you only quoted the first word from the popular children's nursery rhyme "Blah, blah, back sheep, have you any wood"

As for the explanation you request, your choice of words often gives you away.


RKO,
James

[jimarilyn]

Hi James,

Sorry, I thought you knew far more about the case than I do. If you don't know what convinced the jury (whether we think it should have done or not), then I can't help you.

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

[reg1965]

I've just read through this link and it does contain some very relevant points - in particular the part where it describes centrifuging the sample to seperate the sperm and non-sperm DNA so that a DNA profile of just the sperm is possible.

Now that really is very interesting if it was used in the A6 case!

Here you pose an interesting question.

Already addressed this in a previous post - they isolated sperm heads and tested for sperm DNA only.

Here you state without doubt that the semen DNA evidence was extracted by testing for DNA from sperm heads only.

Link in post #111

My comment post #114

Link -> http://www.scientific.org/tutorials/...ley/riley.html
See section entitled:- Analysis of Separated Sperm and Non-Sperm Fractions.

Here you just go back to the beginning again.

SO:-

Nowhere in the linked article does it state that the DNA evidence in Hanratty was elicited using a sperm only technique. It doesn't mention anything about the Hanratty case at all.
Nowhere in the Appeal ruling is it mentioned either. That would mean 2 different techniques where used, this spermy DNA thing for Storie's knicker fragment and something else for Hanrattys snot rag.

So where did you get the information from about it being used in Hanratty or did you just make it up?

In fact the most relevant part of that section of the article with regard to the Hanratty case is the last paragraph, which reads:

The description of this procedure so far is quite ideal. It works pretty much as described for fresh samples. Even with fresh samples however, some of the non-sperm DNA will be trapped in the sperm pellet. This can be a major problem if the amount of sperm is very low or if the samples are aged and degraded. Often male cells, most likely immature sperm or white cells may end up in the supernatant, variously called the “female” fraction or “non-sperm” fraction.

(my emboldening)

We know it was LCN that was used anyway because Whitaker told BBC's Horizon programme that the samples were subjected to 34 PCR amplification cycles, pure LCN as can be read in the transcript of the programme found here.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/2001/a6murdertrans.shtml

Search the page for narrator and you will find it.

[reg1965]

I hope you all have a great Christmas and New Year, I'm off for a couple of weeks shortly...

Good. Don't hurry back now!

[reg1965]

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

Hi 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.

Cheers
Reg

[Sara]

I started reading the two threads on this subject from the beginning and I'd read all of this thread and about a third of the main thread before I started to read any of the current posts (or posted myself).

This subject - which is fascinating - was notable during its earlier discussions for the calm, considered and polite manner of the postings - until certain people got involved which always seems to lead to marked change of tone in a thread

Can we please leave out the personal mud-slinging, folk?


Right, back to topic: one point which has been debated endlessly is that there was no other DNA on the fragment of panty used in the final appeal tests than 'Hanrratty's'. I don't think this means much, frankly.

Posts 1770 ff (main thead) discuss this with some posters pouring scorn on the idea of an 'impotent rapist'.

As the Napper case has recently underlined, many rapists are dysfunctional sexually. And as any woman who has had quite a few sexual partners can tell you, it's not at all uncommon for a man who is in a state of tension to achieve penetration (sometimes only just) and then lose his erection before ejaculation.

There was reportedly DNA from two men on the original sample of panty, but only from one on the fragment finally tested. The fragment was so infinitessimal - it had to be cloned over and over to get any 'pattern' - that there is imo no GUARANTEE that it didn't come from cross-contamination. The abscence of any '3rd party' DNA on the final or even the original one fragment is therefore not conclusive. Just because the judge dismissed the possibility, does NOT mean we are obliged to do so. He used the handkerchief as part of his reasoning.

But the handkerchief is almost certainly a red herring - it's imo so obviously a plant, with the gun and THREE!! BOXES of ammo - that it can be discounted as evidence of Hanratty's involvement, on its own.

We know that JH kept his gun sometimes at the Frances', that his washing was sometimes done there, and that France killed himself immediately after the failure of Hanrtatty's appeal

DNA forensics are the new shibboleth of science, almost impossible to counter by the defence and certainly impossible to follow by a jury (or most judges!). Only in the UK are they given such credence, with juries heavily influenced by forensics programmes on TV, which are FICTION, to see DNA evidence as infallible.

The actual reliability of DNA testing of such incredibly minute particles is not generally accepted, see again:

http://www.nacdl.org/public.nsf/0/6285f6867724e1e685257124006f9177

and related articles.

See also post 1790 on the main thread
Also posts 1805/06 (Armagh bombing case)


I fail to see how anyone who bears these matteers in mind can think that Hanratty's guilt is cut and dried, proven beyond doubt. The unreliability of DNA evidence (and the fact it rests entirely on INTERPRETATION) MUST put his guilt in doubt for any open-minded person, even if it doesn't prove his innocence.

[Sara]

In fact some of the comments in a report regarding the Armagh case are so pertinent they bear repeating; this concerns Low Copy Number (LCN) DNA (bold is my own emphasis)


<< It allows DNA profiles to be uncovered even when there is only a tiny amount of DNA present, sometimes as small as a millionth the size of a grain of salt.

The FSS, a government-owned for-profit company that is Britain's largest forensics provider, began routinely using LCN testing in casework in 1999, and has said it was used to help convict - among others - the killers of the Swedish foreign minister Anna Lindh and the British backpacker Peter Falconio.

The FSS say they have used the technique about 21,000 times.

Despite that, there have been constant doubts within the scientific community about the merits of LCN testing, and Sean Hoey's defence team decided to attack the method, the science behind it and the conclusions that can be drawn from the results. For help, they turned to Professor Dan Krane, a DNA expert from Ohio.

"Low Copy Number tests are much more prone to flexible interpretation, than with the conventional tests.

"Because of its great sensitivity, there are much greater concerns about the persistence of DNA and its ability to be transferred from one article to another. It's just too easy for contamination to occur, or for DNA to have become associated with an article through very innocent, very old contact."

LCN DNA testing has been validated only by the FSS's own scientists, rather than by outside experts >>

How can any verdict based entirely on this technique be regarded as relaiable, let alone infallible?

[reg1965]

Hi Sara

I started reading the two threads on this subject from the beginning and I'd read all of this thread and about a third of the main thread before I started to read any of the current posts (or posted myself).

This subject - which is fascinating - was notable during its earlier discussions for the calm, considered and polite manner of the postings - until certain people got involved which always seems to lead to marked change of tone in a thread

Can we please leave out the personal mud-slinging, folk?

It does seem that the DNA evidence has polarized things somewhat!

Right, back to topic: one point which has been debated endlessly is that there was no other DNA on the fragment of panty used in the final appeal tests than 'Hanrratty's'. I don't think this means much, frankly.

The appeal court ruling at P125 states that:

...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....

Without a full transcript of the hearing it is not clear how sample profiles of Storie or Gregsten were obtained or whether it was just assumed that they would be there. In the case of Gregsten it is only considered as being attributed to him rather than definitely from him.

Posts 1770 ff (main thead) discuss this with some posters pouring scorn on the idea of an 'impotent rapist'.

Not sure where this originated. Neither Hanratty nor Alphon have children as far as I know...although Hanratty's chances of doing so were curtailed somewhat in 1962!

As the Napper case has recently underlined, many rapists are dysfunctional sexually. And as any woman who has had quite a few sexual partners can tell you, it's not at all uncommon for a man who is in a state of tension to achieve penetration (sometimes only just) and then lose his erection before ejaculation.

Another complete and utter old bill **** up. Napper refused to confess on numerous occasions after a microscopic piece of his DNA was found in 2004. He finally recently confessed but the old bill must have put a lot of other evidence to him as well to nail him. He is in Broadmoor already but the damage has already been done.

There was reportedly DNA from two men on the original sample of panty, but only from one on the fragment finally tested. The fragment was so infinitessimal - it had to be cloned over and over to get any 'pattern' - that there is imo no GUARANTEE that it didn't come from cross-contamination. The abscence of any '3rd party' DNA on the final or even the original one fragment is therefore not conclusive. Just because the judge dismissed the possibility, does NOT mean we are obliged to do so. He used the handkerchief as part of his reasoning.

I agree here as well. Although by your usage of fragment in the second instance you mean available DNA. The chances of no other microscopic pieces of DNA not being present is...well IMO unlikely.

Also see above. Gregstens DNA is only attributed..
And below about the hanky.

But the handkerchief is almost certainly a red herring - it's imo so obviously a plant, with the gun and THREE!! BOXES of ammo - that it can be discounted as evidence of Hanratty's involvement, on its own.

Agreed. Hanratty said in court that it was his.

We know that JH kept his gun sometimes at the Frances', that his washing was sometimes done there, and that France killed himself immediately after the failure of Hanrtatty's appeal

Did Hanratty have a gun at any time? His washing being at the Frances gives an opportunity to swipe a dirty hanky. His suicide may have been driven by Alphon who tormented him by telephone.

DNA forensics are the new shibboleth of science, almost impossible to counter by the defence and certainly impossible to follow by a jury (or most judges!). Only in the UK are they given such credence, with juries heavily influenced by forensics programmes on TV, which are FICTION, to see DNA evidence as infallible.

Its a shame that the Hanratty family could not call on a better set of expert DNA witnesses at the recent appeal. I mean no ill-will to Dr Evison but he just does not seem to have been up to the job for me. The vast majority of skilled DNA analysis technicians were working for the FSS at that time. ONly recently have skilled experts been readily available for defence purposes.

The actual reliability of DNA testing of such incredibly minute particles is not generally accepted, see again:

http://www.nacdl.org/public.nsf/0/6285f6867724e1e685257124006f9177

and related articles.

See also post 1790 on the main thread
Also posts 1805/06 (Armagh bombing case)

Again I agree. It was actually the Omagh Bombing and it was me who raised it back in August time.

I fail to see how anyone who bears these matteers in mind can think that Hanratty's guilt is cut and dried, proven beyond doubt. The unreliability of DNA evidence (and the fact it rests entirely on INTERPRETATION) MUST put his guilt in doubt for any open-minded person, even if it doesn't prove his innocence.

Again I agree.

Cheers
Reg

[reg1965]

In fact some of the comments in a report regarding the Armagh case are so pertinent they bear repeating; this concerns Low Copy Number (LCN) DNA (bold is my own emphasis)


<< It allows DNA profiles to be uncovered even when there is only a tiny amount of DNA present, sometimes as small as a millionth the size of a grain of salt.

The FSS, a government-owned for-profit company that is Britain's largest forensics provider, began routinely using LCN testing in casework in 1999, and has said it was used to help convict - among others - the killers of the Swedish foreign minister Anna Lindh and the British backpacker Peter Falconio.

The FSS say they have used the technique about 21,000 times.

Despite that, there have been constant doubts within the scientific community about the merits of LCN testing, and Sean Hoey's defence team decided to attack the method, the science behind it and the conclusions that can be drawn from the results. For help, they turned to Professor Dan Krane, a DNA expert from Ohio.

"Low Copy Number tests are much more prone to flexible interpretation, than with the conventional tests.

"Because of its great sensitivity, there are much greater concerns about the persistence of DNA and its ability to be transferred from one article to another. It's just too easy for contamination to occur, or for DNA to have become associated with an article through very innocent, very old contact."

LCN DNA testing has been validated only by the FSS's own scientists, rather than by outside experts >>

How can any verdict based entirely on this technique be regarded as relaiable, let alone infallible?

Hi Sara
As far as the Omagh Bombing case is concerned it was the evidence, given over 4 days by Professor Allan Jamieson of the Forensic Institute in Glasgow that led to the case being found in Hoey's favour.
It is true that LCN has not been validated outside of the FSS by its inventors Dr's Whitaker and Gill. What kind of justice system do we have in this country that allows such a piss poor technique to be used to convict people.
Regards
Reg

[Sara]

A few more thoughts on this topic, as I plough through last September's postings on the main thread (and forgive me for re-posting a few links etc, but they are so important that new people [like myself] might like to read them):


Graham 27th Sept 08:

<< When the results of the DNA were first publicised I was amazed, astonished and, frankly, sceptical. However, I have never, ever, not to this day, the other place notwithstanding, seen any good reason to doubt the results. DNA, like fingerprints, is not a matter of personal opinion - it is fact, scientific fact. To doubt it is to doubt the very basis of scientific criminal investigation in the 21st century, something which I am not prepared to do. Simple as that. >>

But it's NOT that simple!

It's important to keep in mind the essential distinction, which is not being made much on either thread (and certainly not by posters believing Hanratty to be guilty beyond doubt), between accepted DNA testing of decent sized samples, and the highly controversial new technique known as LCN (Low Copy Number) testing. This can take an infinitessimal particle of DNA and 'clone' it to get a pattern. The dangers should be obvious even to the uninitiated and unscientific; yet this is the technique used in the final 2002 appeal!

The Forensic Institute itself has come out against the technique as a tool of evidence - and this is using contemporary DNA fragments, let alone old and possibly degraded or contaminated fragments.

See this essential link - This report (written in April 2008 and therefore representing very current thinking on LCN) specifically relates to the Armagh verdict; but its conclusions are surely even more pertinent regarding a tiny DNA fragment from 1961 (I think Reg posted this originally back in September):

http://www.theforensicinstitute.com/public_html/PressLCN.htm

I seriously fail to see how anyone who has read this damning 'review of the Review', itself by forensic scientists, can imagine that the LCN verdict on the panty fragment can be considered safe. (If indeed it even was from the panty!)

If the judge in the final Appeal had been able to read this 2008 review back in 2002, I doubt he too would have thought the evidence safe. As it was he was 'blinded by science', as so many seem to be on here.

Since the last fragment of this purported piece of 'evidence' was destroyed in an attempt at obtaining the supposed DNA in 2002, we shall never know 'beyond doubt' and this essential aspect of the case will imo always be debatable

By the way I can't find the ref now, but Michael Hanratty is down as saying that the panties or piece of panty and other pieces of evidence were not only all dumped into the same box or case each day for carrying back and forth to court, but they were freely handed by the usher in charge of them to various witnesses (and to Hanratty himself presumably, inc his handkerchief), and handled by them indiscriminately. Draw your own conclusions!