a6 murder

[Victor]

I would also like to welcome new poster Dupplin Muir. A most interesting and thought provoking post. Please stick around and contribute to this great forum thread.

Re JamesDeans post #1610. I too agree that it was an excellent post!

It is indeed a well constructed and coherent post. I believe that the knicker fragment was the only piece retained because it had noticeable staining and was where the rapists blood type had come from - the rest of the knickers were discarded because they served no purpose.

This quote "...the defence will always contend that there is something flawed about the process..." should I feel start with the word "every" rather than "the"

The rest of the post relates to a conspiracy theory, and the thing about conspiracy theories is that they are self-fullfilling and you can argue until you are blue in the face adn they won't go away...JFK, Elvis is alive, etc.

By way of illustration: if I have profile AB and you have profile CD, our mixed cells would have a profile ABCD. However, the same profile could be produced by two people with profiles AC and BD, or AD and BC. If this mixture was found at a crime scene, we now have six "suspect" profiles. If the person with the BD profile is unlucky enough to live in the area where the crime was committed, BD now needs to explain why he has no association with the material found at the scene. In fact, a mixed profile could generate about 60,000 suspects."

I'm not sure if this is a quote of someone else, but it's rather stretching the truth and seems to be confusing genetics with DNA profiling. Simplifying a DNA profile to AB is ridiculously extreme oversimplification (DNA has billions of basepairs) and to postulate the existance of someone with profile BD is like claiming to have found identical snowflakes...

I believe that the DNA evidence should have been ruled inadmissable because of the judges lay position on the subject and their ability to truly test the findings one way or another.

I'm sorry this is the silliest statement ever - it basically amounts to banning expert advice on any subject unless you can fully explain it to the judges - lets send all judges on degree courses, then doctorates, in multiple subjects - you want to talk about balistics and gunshot wounds, sorry you'll have to wait a decade or two for the judges to become fully cognisant of the subject.

...enough, unnecesarily heated, debate has been made already.

I don't agree that my posts are unneccesarily heated, I hope I've remained polite throughout. Although with argument\discussion comes disagreement.

"Precisely my point, that article confirms it, it isn't the science that is the problem, it's the interpretation of the results!"

I still maintain this viewpoint - and most of your references support it - the science gives you an answer - the DNA profile or whatever - and goes as far as saying that that profile is identical to Hanratty's - then comes the interpretation - i.e., How did that profile get there?

You suggest contamination, but must propose mechanism for that to occur... And in the end the judges concluded that's unlikely because VS and MG profiles are there too, but not "the rapist" unless "the rapist" IS Hanratty.

[JamesDean]

James Dean
Hello
What exactly is your evidence that the gun and handkerchief were planted on the bus?

Regards johnl

Hello johnl,

I don't have proof that the gun and handkerchief were planted on the bus but neither is there proof that Hanratty put it there. That the handkerchief was undoubtedly belonging to Hanratty would suggest that he put it there but I don't consider this to be a particularly strong argument. If the gun had Hanratty's fingerprints on it then it would be game, set and match for the prosecution; but it didn't.

By the way, in my earlier post I refer to defence in the sense of anyone who is defending Hanratty not specifically his legally appointed defence team. I think Victor picked up on that in his post #1621.

Regards

[johnl]

DNA evidence

Victor
I like the cut of your jib!
Regarding using "the" and "every" in front of defence, in my post I admit I wilfully and mischievously took it literally!

Regards johnl

[reg1965]

Reg 1965
I appreciate all your paragraphs re Prof Jamieson but you are wilfully misinterpreting what he is saying.You originally used the thread to cast doubts on DNA profiling, not as to its use in trials, which Prof. Jamieson support on a case by case basis....
Regards johnl

johnl

My first 2 posts on this thread were #'s 1395 & 1397.
In the first I said "The DNA evidence is, from my lay viewpoint, a joke. Too much so called expert scientific evidence has led to too many wrongful convictions over the years (The McGuires, Barry George and anyone subjected to Sir Roy Meadows Munchaesen by Proxy nonsense etc)."
In the second, in reply to Richard, I said "I didn't say that the science of DNA was a joke. What I meant was that the DNA evidence presented at the appeal was a joke and implied succinctness around the subject of contamination/degradation of the materials available for scrutiny."

So I have hardly used the thread ORIGINALLY to cast doubt on DNA profiling. If you are going to quote me then quote me correctly and if you are going to take issue with my arguments then at least get the details of my facts correct please.

Hi Victor

From your last post #1621 you say "I'm not sure if this is a quote of someone else, but it's rather stretching the truth and seems to be confusing genetics with DNA profiling. Simplifying a DNA profile to AB is ridiculously extreme oversimplification (DNA has billions of basepairs) and to postulate the existance of someone with profile BD is like claiming to have found identical snowflakes..."

It is from Professor Jamieson you could take it up with him if you like. His email address is:
allanj@theforensicinstitute.com

Are you confusing the above AB BD example to the base pairs AT CG?

reg-the laughing policeman ;-)

[JamesDean]

I believe that the knicker fragment was the only piece retained because it had noticeable staining and was where the rapists blood type had come from - the rest of the knickers were discarded because they served no purpose.

Hi Victor

I think the rest of the garment could have served a purpose had it been retained. If Hanratty's DNA could be found in multiple places on the garment, particularly in areas that one would not expect to find it given the circumstances, then perhaps that would have given credence to the theory of cross-contamination. Just a thought.

Regards

[johnl]

Gun and handkerchief

James Dean
I didn't ask for "proof " that the gun had been planted merely "evidence".
The "evidence" that JH put it there is the handkerchief, however much weight you put on it, there is none that it was planted.
To state my own position on this, I think the gun could possibly have been planted. I think the original verdict was probably unsafe and should have been overturned on the first appeal. I believe JH did it but I think there is a strong possibilty that he was surrounded by a conspiracy either before or after the event.

Regards johnl

[Tony]

Door locking system.

Hello everyone,

Terrible weather in The Peak District today. I bought two new sun beds in May ready for the baking summer to come; they are still in the wrappers in the garage, anyway there’s always next year.

Now can anyone, yes you Graham, tell me about the door locking mechanism of Gregston’s Morris Minor?

I know that central locking was a thing of the future but could the car be completely locked from the inside. I remember cars I had in the seventies, and yes I’ve done it more than once, that you could press the door button down then hold the handle up and slam the door and lock your keys inside. But I’m sure the old Morris Minor was even more basic than that. In fact could the driver’s door be locked whilst you were still inside? I am pretty sure you, as the driver, could get out, lock the door with the key and inadvertently leave both back doors unlocked and open able.

I’ll let you know what I’m getting at when I find out the specification for the locking mechanism.

Thanks lads.


Tony.

[jimarilyn]

I could also argue from an ethical standpoint that 'perhaps' someone wanted to put this to bed and the test was 'set up' to achieve that end; to bring to an end the speculation that surrounds this case. Can we positively eliminate all possibility of some form of tampering taking place prior to the test being carried out? No, of course we can never be sure. It's an act of faith to believe that could never happen. Evidence is never planted is it?

Hi JamesDean,

You're absolutely correct. Evidence is never planted. Governments would never dream of deceiving Joe Public, they never ever have ulterior motives or hidden agendas. The police never close ranks. Corruption never exists in high places. And tomorrow is Sunday.

[reg1965]

Hi Victor

From your post #1621

I'm sorry this is the silliest statement ever - it basically amounts to banning expert advice on any subject unless you can fully explain it to the judges - lets send all judges on degree courses, then doctorates, in multiple subjects - you want to talk about balistics and gunshot wounds, sorry you'll have to wait a decade or two for the judges to become fully cognisant of the subject.

The full context of my post #1614 reads


"Also the court of appeal, as correctly stated by Mansfield (Appeal Ruling 2002. paragraphs 82-97 in full) is one of review and not the usurper of trial by jury.
I believe that the DNA evidence should have been ruled inadmissable because of the judges lay position on the subject and their ability to truly test the findings one way or another. From this lay position they plumped fully for one, whilst rejecting fresh evidence that may quite possibly have affected the original jury's verdict in favour of acquittal.
Recent finidngs in cases involving DNA, as we have seen, has produced a real doubt as to its integrity in criminal cases and appeal hearings."


The true arbiters of any evidence in a criminal case is the jury. Judges have the power to decide the admissiblity but it is ultimately the jury who decides the pros and cons of any evidence. So is it the same in appeals. The appeal judges must be mindful of this and way the pros and cons of admissibilty and significance along with other evidence that would be put before a jury.

In R v Hoey (Omagh bombing appeal) the judge, Justice Weir, concluded with a quote from LCJ Lowry from the case of R. v Steenson and others [1986] NIJB17 at page 36.

"Justice 'according to law' demands proper evidence. By that we mean not merely evidence which might be true and to a considerable extent probably is true, but, as the learned trial judge put it, "evidence which is so convincing in truth and manifestly reliable that it reaches the standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt."

In fact many cases today, involving financial crime, are being touted as being too complicated for trial by jury and would possibly involve specialist judges that can understand the evidence.

Regards
Reg.

[johnl]

DNA evidence

Reg1965
I must admit it took me a while to comprehend your post 1624 but if this is the level you've been reduced to in responding to Victor's and my posts and arguements then you are a busted flush!
So as far as the DNA evidence is concerned it's QED.
I rest my case.

Lots of love and best wishes
johnl

[JamesDean]

Hi JamesDean,

You're absolutely correct. Evidence is never planted. Governments would never dream of deceiving Joe Public, they never ever have ulterior motives or hidden agendas. The police never close ranks. Corruption never exists in high places. And tomorrow is Sunday.

Did 'they' ever find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq?

[JamesDean]

James Dean
I didn't ask for "proof " that the gun had been planted merely "evidence".
The "evidence" that JH put it there is the handkerchief, however much weight you put on it, there is none that it was planted.
To state my own position on this, I think the gun could possibly have been planted. I think the original verdict was probably unsafe and should have been overturned on the first appeal. I believe JH did it but I think there is a strong possibilty that he was surrounded by a conspiracy either before or after the event.

Regards johnl

Quite so! There is a difference between evidence and proof.

I could argue that the handkerchief is evidence that JH did not place the gun under the back seat of the 36A bus. Yes it's Hanratty's handkerchief so why leave a calling card. What is the purpose of leaving the handkerchief with the gun and ammunition? He could hardly have been caught in possession of a deadly handkerchief so why leave it on the bus? Without the handkerchief there is no link to Hanratty. Did he leave handkerchiefs in all the houses he burgled?

Regards

[reg1965]

Reg1965
I must admit it took me a while to comprehend your post 1624 but if this is the level you've been reduced to in responding to Victor's and my posts and arguements then you are a busted flush!
So as far as the DNA evidence is concerned it's QED.
I rest my case.

Lots of love and best wishes
johnl

Hi johnl
Well if its going to get personal again I may as well way in with my twopennies worth and then just ignore you as the idiot you have shown yourself to be.

HAHAHAHAHA (me chuckling to myself!)

You remind me of the juror played by Lee J Cobb in Twelve Angry Men! He had all the facts too! Could never quite convince the other 11 that he was right though.

Lots and love and best wishes and Goodbye!
Reg

[johnl]

DNA evidence

Reg1965
Sorry reg
When you posted your last post I was doing mine and I didn't realise your arguements were having death throes:-
"Recent findings in cases involving DNA....etc, etc" Have you been involved in this discussion or sleep walking?
"Justice 'according to law......etc, etc" Satisfied in this case.
"In fact, many cases today involving financial crime...etc" The proposal is that financial experts sit with the judges; I know something about this as I am an accountant!
"The true arbiters....etc,etc" You are aware that appeal courts do not have jury are you?
Hopefully that is goodnight and good-bye

Regards johnl

[johnl]

Gun and handkerchief

Hello James Dean
I basically agree with you on the matter of the handkerchief and the gun and yes you could make that arguement-I personally find it untenable.
Don't lots of criminals leave some sort of calling card? That's why they get caught!
Does there have to be a "purpose" in leaving the handkerchief?
I'm not aware that he left a handkerchief in any of the houses he burgled.

Regards johnl