a6 murder

[JamesDean]

Morning Steve,

I still say that if you were serving someone in the pub and next day you found out they had both been shot you would think of nothing else but that previous evening and about the shot couple. You simply wouldn’t be able to help yourself. Things like “Oh yes what a nice bloke always very polite bit of a charmer. He wore a wedding ring but I don’t think the girl was his wife. He always drank DD but she liked a change Do you know where they come from? Do you know if they are local? Did they ever come in with anyone else? Do you remember the time they etc etc?
You would be racking your brains for bits of memories.
It’s just the same as when an acquaintance or relative dies somebody tells a tale that everyone has forgotten but suddenly everyone has a new tale to tell.

Tony

Morning Tony,

I agree with your hypothesis. This was big news and Steve has already said it was a quiet night for the pub and if they left when the pub began filling up that means that it could have been quite empty when they first went in for a drink so more likely that she would remember details ofwhat she had served them etc. Had it been a busy night then maybe she would be less sure.

Regards
James

[johnl]

DNA evidence

Morning James
I was pointing out that in your sentence you incorrectly stated that NO DNA was present whereas I was pointing out that it would be there, but undetectable.
There were Two elements in the DNA evidence presented at the appeal and to discredit the DNA evidence you have to refute both of these at the same time.
As I have said many times before there was a presumption of contamination so we have to consider:-
1/ The evidence regarding the analogy given by Victor re the cake AND
2/ The distribution of the DNA
You have to satisfy BOTH of these points, at the same time, to refute the evidence. If your theory re "no sperm" stands (I don't know if it does because I haven't had the time to research it) then ONE of these elements ( ie why was the rapist's DNA not there?) is satisfied, the second point (ie how did JH's DNA get there?) is not. Don"t say contamination because as I have already said this had been presumed.
You say "The test doesn't reveal the presence of specific DNA at specific points on the garment".That's the whole point, it DOES (remember the handkerchief!). Thus element two of the requirement is satisfied in favour of the Crown whilst, at the same time, dealing with the contamination issue.
Finally,The New Scientist is a well respected and widely-read journal, do you seriously think that it wouldn't have come to the attention of Dr. Iveson: wouldn't a little light have come on in his brain flashing "THE HANRATTY CASE" ?

All the best, as ever
johnl

PS Instead of DR. Iveson, you could read "the forensic community"; the perfect opportunuty for a bright,young forensic scientist to make a name for himself!

[Tony]

Hey boy's in blue don't tell the defence this but.....

Good Morning to you James Dean,

As you know I’m pretty useless with this DNA stuff but I do read all posts and must confess some do go over my head.
However, I notice that you say that the semen may not have contained sperm and did anybody bother in 1961. Well they certainly knew about it in 1975 when Leslie Moleseed was murdered. The semen on her underwear contained sperm. Kisko, under arrest and charged, could not produce sperm. Hmm better not let the defence know about that. Kisko found guilty, no hanging so life in prison. Sixteen years later the truth comes out and Kisko is immediately released only to die 18 months later.

Isn’t life a bummer.

Do you know the percentage of men who produce semen without sperm?

Tony

[johnl]

Tony

Good Morning to you James Dean,

As you know I’m pretty useless with this DNA stuff but I do read all posts and must confess some do go over my head.
However, I notice that you say that the semen may not have contained sperm and did anybody bother in 1961. Well they certainly knew about it in 1975 when Leslie Moleseed was murdered. The semen on her underwear contained sperm. Kisko, under arrest and charged, could not produce sperm. Hmm better not let the defence know about that. Kisko found guilty, no hanging so life in prison. Sixteen years later the truth comes out and Kisko is immediately released only to die 18 months later.

Isn’t life a bummer.

Do you know the percentage of men who produce semen without sperm?

Tony

Hello Tony
That's quite interesting really. If JH had got off all those years ago, being a career criminal he would possibly have been nailed eventually a la Ronald Castree

Regards
johnl

[jimarilyn]

Good Morning to you James Dean,

As you know I’m pretty useless with this DNA stuff but I do read all posts and must confess some do go over my head.
However, I notice that you say that the semen may not have contained sperm and did anybody bother in 1961. Well they certainly knew about it in 1975 when Leslie Moleseed was murdered. The semen on her underwear contained sperm. Kisko, under arrest and charged, could not produce sperm. Hmm better not let the defence know about that. Kisko found guilty, no hanging so life in prison. Sixteen years later the truth comes out and Kisko is immediately released only to die 18 months later.

Isn’t life a bummer.

Do you know the percentage of men who produce semen without sperm?

Tony

Hi Tony,

I'm in the same boat as you (hope it's not the Titanic) re. the science of DNA testing/profiling (might enrol for a course on it at the local night school ) but I also read every post on it (pass the Paracetamol).
The vast majority of it ( in common probably with most on this thread ) does go over my head, but one possible reason the killer's DNA was not present could be that he did not (or could not ) ejaculate any semen (excuse the crude terminology) into Mys Sterie's errm you know what.
Thinking about Peter Louis Alphon, today is his 78th birthday. I wonder how often he thinks about the A6 murder, I'd love to be a fly on the wall in his bedsit, flat or whatever. Does he have any mementoes of VS hidden away somewhere ? Will the real PLA stand up and make his presence known to this thread as a birthday treat to us all !

[JamesDean]

Dna

Do you know the percentage of men who produce semen without sperm?

Hi Tony

The medical term for this is azoospermia and it occurs in about 2% of the general male population.

Regards
James

[johnl]

Jimarilyn

Hello jimarilyb
My compliment to James Dean regarding his tenacity is now extended to you: Thanks for your posts. they are making this debate really interesting!!
I only meant to make one post but I'm still here!!
It's OK for you and James Dean, I'm having to deal with impotent rapists, sterile rapists and anything else you can throw at me!
Again, thanks for the posts

Regards
johnl

[Tony]

Hello jimarilyb
My compliment to James Dean regarding his tenacity is now extended to you: Thanks for your posts. they are making this debate really interesting!!
I only meant to make one post but I'm still here!!
It's OK for you and James Dean, I'm having to deal with impotent rapists, sterile rapists and anything else you can throw at me!
Again, thanks for the posts

Regards
johnl

Hello Jimarilyn,

Hey a nice reply to you from johnl and I’ve had two. I always fear the worse though. I believe Reg is in hospital with a stress related condition.
I really think johnl is treating us with kid gloves but let’s not get complacent.

You never know maybe we’re on a roll here buddy.

Tony.

[Tony]

Real Life Crimes.

Hello Steve,

Just had a quick glance through my Real Life Crimes. There’s some quite good stuff in it. There’s a picture of the bus cleaner Edwin Cooke lifting the back seat of the bus up. He always did this because he once found two dead rats there.
There’s a picture of James Hanratty that I’ve never seen before. There’s a good photo of Dixie and family. A picture of the Stevonia, a picture of the car taking Hanratty into Bedfordshire police HQ, a very good picture of Mrs Dinwoodie, a picture of Ingledene, a picture of the ambulance arriving at court with Valerie inside, a good photo of Acott and another picture of Hanratty under a blanket arriving at court, a picture of Louise Anderson and finally a photo of Peter Alphon stood in a pub drinking.

It’s issue 27 if you can find it.

Did you read my post about Valerie saying she went to the Old Station Inn with friends of Mike?

Tony.

[JamesDean]

The DNA evidence

In my opinion it is all too easy to just accept that DNA test results are infallible and therefore the Hanratty case is solved once and for all. Whilst accepting that the DNA 'may' have proven Hanratty's guilt beyond reasonable doubt I still have my own lingering doubt about the process that produced the findings in 2002.

One area of concern is the actual laboratory handling of the tests. Believe it or not but the lab is the most likely source of cross contamination. This is particularly true where more than one test is being carried out simultaneously. In the Hanratty case we have the handkerchief and the fragment of fabric that are both undergoing tests and the reference sample taken from Hanratty's exhumed body.

It is known that the PCR process, which is used to amplify or photo copy tiny amounts of DNA that was detected, was run 34 times to achieve sufficient quantity of DNA to be able to get a profile. With this number of repetitions of the process being run on two items simultaneously (and of course there is also the control sample from JH) there is a lot of scope for a mix up of the samples and then we get a positive match and link between the items. The error cannot be spotted because it's what was expected anyway. And remember that the lab is not independent but effectively an arm of the prosecution. I haven't even suggested that anything was done deliberately but that is also a possibility. However, there is sufficient scope for accidental mixing of samples for us to say that any flaw in the testing process was likely accidental and undetectable.

It was noticeable that the results of the DNA test were released prior to the appeal. I'm not suggesting that the appeal would have come to a different conclusion without the DNA finding, we can never know that, but it must have made some impact on the appeal panel judges and somewhat coloured their judgment of the other evidence if they believed that the DNA proved guilt beyond doubt.

As for the above theory of laboratory contamination/mixup, it is a documented problem ...

Tarnish On The 'Gold Standard': Recent Problems In Forensic DNA Testing
By William C. Thompson
January/February 2006

DNA evidence has long been called “the gold standard” of forensic science. Most people believe it is virtually infallible — that it either produces the right result or no result. But this belief is difficult to square with recent news stories about errors in DNA testing. An extraordinary number of problems related to forensic DNA evidence have recently come to light.

A close look at the field shows that DNA testing errors have been popping up all over the country (USA). Many of the mistakes arise from cross-contamination or mislabeling of DNA samples.

While most of the problems are due to inadvertent mistakes, a number of cases involving dishonesty have also come to light. DNA analysts have recently been fired for scientific misconduct, and specifically for falsification of test results.

So what is going on with DNA testing? How can we explain this sudden rash of problems with “the gold standard” of forensic science? How can a test that has long been advertised as virtually infallible produce so many errors? And what is behind the recent spate of dishonesty among DNA analysts? The answers to these questions are, in my view, interconnected. Some serious underlying problems with DNA testing that have existed for a long time are beginning to come to light. What we are seeing is not a sudden deterioration in the quality of DNA testing. It is the inevitable emergence and recognition of problems that existed all along but heretofore were successfully hidden.

A problem now emerging into the light is an unexpectedly high rate of laboratory errors involving mix-up and cross-contamination of DNA samples. Errors of this type appear to be chronic and occur even at the best DNA labs. This is a problem that forensic scientists have largely managed to keep under wraps (perhaps because it is always embarrassing). Practitioners have long claimed that the rate of laboratory error in DNA testing is so low as to be negligible, but growing evidence suggests otherwise.

Errors occur regularly. Files from Orchid-Cellmark’s Germantown, Maryland facility, for example, show dozens of instances in which samples were contaminated with foreign DNA or DNA was somehow transferred from one sample to another during testing.

The same processes that cause detectable errors in some cases can cause undetectable errors in others. If DNA from a suspect is accidentally transferred into a “blank” control sample, it is obvious that something is wrong; if the suspect’s DNA is accidentally transferred into an evidentiary sample, the error is not obvious because there is another explanation — i.e., that the suspect is the source of the evidentiary DNA.

A problem now emerging is dishonest DNA analysts who falsify test results. I suspect this problem is closely related to the previous problem: DNA analysts are faking test results to cover up errors arising from cross-contamination of DNA samples and sample mix-ups.

Given the unexpectedly high frequency of contamination in DNA testing we have just discussed, it is interesting, and not at all surprising, that the major form of fakery discovered to date involves control samples known as extraction blanks that are designed to detect contamination. These samples are supposed to contain no DNA. When they produce positive results, it indicates there was a problem — DNA somehow ended up in a sample where it did not belong. If that happened to a control sample, it could also have happened to other samples, so the analyst must throw out the whole test and start over.

The temptation to fake controls probably arises partly from production pressures and partly from the collision between the public image of DNA testing as infallible and the reality that it is easier than one might expect to botch a DNA test by cross-contaminating samples.

Furthermore, the presence of DNA in an extraction blank can be embarrassing for an analyst because contamination is often the result of sloppy laboratory technique. Having to redo the analysis can also lead to uncomfortable questions about why the analyst needed two or more tries to get the test right. DNA tests themselves are viewed as infallible, so any problem that occurs in testing tends to be attributed (fairly or not) to the analyst’s incompetence. Consequently, a single mistake can end an analyst’s career. So what is a DNA analyst to do if problems (such as positive results in blank control samples) occur too often? For an analyst who thinks that the test results are right anyway, it must be very tempting just to hide the problem.

One sure pathway to a false incrimination is accidental contamination of an evidentiary sample with DNA from a suspect’s reference sample. Given the known danger of cross-contamination among samples being processed together as a batch, most DNA laboratories take care to process the evidentiary samples at a different time or place than reference samples. However, some laboratories insist on processing reference samples and evidentiary samples from a case all at the same time, a practice that seems irresponsible, even outrageous, given the danger that a laboratory accident could produce a false incrimination.

A false incrimination can also occur through cross-contamination among evidentiary samples. Even labs that are careful to test reference samples separately from evidentiary samples often process all of the evidentiary samples from a case together, creating the potential for false matches.

DNA evidence is difficult to challenge in the courtroom because most people think it is virtually infallible. It is not just jurors, fed on a media diet of CSI-style fantasies, who think so. Most members of the academic and legal community believe it as well. Even scholars who are critical of other areas of forensic identification science have argued that DNA is an exception—calling DNA testing “a model for scientifically sound identification science.”

While there is no doubt that DNA testing rests on a stronger scientific foundation than many other forensic disciplines, recent events have proven that DNA evidence is hardly infallible. The solid scientific foundation for DNA testing is no guarantee that DNA tests will be carried out in a reliable manner that produces accurate results. Bad laboratory work is all too common and laboratory accidents and errors can occur even in good labs. Whether DNA evidence is trustworthy is a question that must be examined carefully in each case. And that challenging task falls ultimately on the shoulders of lawyers who represent clients incriminated by DNA tests.

[johnl]

DNA evidence

hello James Dean
You're taking a different tack eh?
It IS all to easy to accept the DNA results are infallible. The appeal court didn't.Don't forget the Hanratty team had the same results plus their own samples to test!
The DNA evidence DID prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, "may" didn't enter in to it.
The DNA process has already been investigated on this thread, there is nothing wrong with the science.
As I have said before, the DNA route was started by the Hanratty team.
So, a brand new tack - judges who are biased and prejudiced. Well they could have come to a different decision regarding the DNA evidence but that would have flown in the face of the facts wouldn't it?
As for the rest of your post, it is very interesting but, for the umpteenth time
THERE WAS A PRESUMPTION OF CONTAMINATION!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Regards
johnl

[jimarilyn]

Hello jimarilyb
My compliment to James Dean regarding his tenacity is now extended to you: Thanks for your posts. they are making this debate really interesting!!
I only meant to make one post but I'm still here!!
It's OK for you and James Dean, I'm having to deal with impotent rapists, sterile rapists and anything else you can throw at me!
Again, thanks for the posts

Regards
johnl

Hi Johnl

I had noticed you're still here. Still trying to blind us with science. I'll be quite frank with you, I believe (rightly or wrongly) from all the voluminous knowledge/information I have gleaned over the years ( I have every book written on the subject) regarding this intriguing case, that James Hanratty was framed for this murder. I am certainly not alone in believing this. A lot of people smell a rat, they know something stinks to high Heaven re. this murder case.
Unlike you I don't have a blind faith in our so called Establishment, history has taught us otherwise. From day one, despite much persuasive evidence to the contrary, successive governments have turned a blind eye to all this impressive evidence which strongly pointed to Hanratty's innocence. Home Secretaries (Labour and Tory) resisted all calls down the years for an independent and impartial public enquiry.
Roy Jenkins in early 1967 set up a secret police investigation into Hanratty's Rhyl alibi. Det Chief Superintendent Derek Nimmo took charge of this so called investigation, went to Rhyl for 6 or 7 days and interviewed witnesses who had no legal representation. There were no independent observers at these interviews to confirm all that what was spoken between police and witnessses. The resulting report, unsurprisingly, several weeks later was a complete whitewash.
The Hanratty family and their supporters were fobbed off time after time in the ensuing years. They knew James inside out, they knew his character, they knew what he was and was not capable of doing. James Hanratty senior looked his son straight in the eyes after his arrest and asked James junior if he committed this awful crime. The nature of Hanratty's reply and his demeanour convinced his father there and then that he was not the A6 murder.

[JamesDean]

The medical term for this is azoospermia and it occurs in about 2% of the general male population.

Hi Tony

I should add that azoospermia is the medical condition and the 2% does not include males who have had a vasectomy so the actual number of males not producing sperm in their semen will be higher.

Regards
James

[johnl]

Jimarilyn

Hi Johnl

I had noticed you're still here. Still trying to blind us with science. I'll be quite frank with you, I believe (rightly or wrongly) from all the voluminous knowledge/information I have gleaned over the years ( I have every book written on the subject) regarding this intriguing case, that James Hanratty was framed for this murder. I am certainly not alone in believing this. A lot of people smell a rat, they know something stinks to high Heaven re. this murder case.
Unlike you I don't have a blind faith in our so called Establishment, history has taught us otherwise. From day one, despite much persuasive evidence to the contrary, successive governments have turned a blind eye to all this impressive evidence which strongly pointed to Hanratty's innocence. Home Secretaries (Labour and Tory) resisted all calls down the years for an independent and impartial public enquiry.
Roy Jenkins in early 1967 set up a secret police investigation into Hanratty's Rhyl alibi. Det Chief Superintendent Derek Nimmo took charge of this so called investigation, went to Rhyl for 6 or 7 days and interviewed witnesses who had no legal representation. There were no independent observers at these interviews to confirm all that what was spoken between police and witnessses. The resulting report, unsurprisingly, several weeks later was a complete whitewash.
The Hanratty family and their supporters were fobbed off time after time in the ensuing years. They knew James inside out, they knew his character, they knew what he was and was not capable of doing. James Hanratty senior looked his son straight in the eyes after his arrest and asked James junior if he committed this awful crime. The nature of Hanratty's reply and his demeanour convinced his father there and then that he was not the A6 murder.

I think Victor has already pointed out that a conspiracy theory is self-fulfiilling.
Your bible on this seems to be the book by Paul Foot, I haven't read it but from a quote of his posted on this thread and that of Woffinden(is that the correct spelling) I have spotted disinformation. As with just about everything else he did this was coloured by his politics ie "kick the establishment."
In the same position as Hanratty's father, mine would have always believed me but that dosen't mean that I was incapable of lying to him.
If you want to turn your face against the irrefutable facts then there's nothing I or anybody else can do about it.

All the best
Johnl
PS Were you serious about the impotent rapist?

[johnl]

Jimarilyn

Hi Johnl

I had noticed you're still here. Still trying to blind us with science. I'll be quite frank with you, I believe (rightly or wrongly) from all the voluminous knowledge/information I have gleaned over the years ( I have every book written on the subject) regarding this intriguing case, that James Hanratty was framed for this murder. I am certainly not alone in believing this. A lot of people smell a rat, they know something stinks to high Heaven re. this murder case.
Unlike you I don't have a blind faith in our so called Establishment, history has taught us otherwise. From day one, despite much persuasive evidence to the contrary, successive governments have turned a blind eye to all this impressive evidence which strongly pointed to Hanratty's innocence. Home Secretaries (Labour and Tory) resisted all calls down the years for an independent and impartial public enquiry.
Roy Jenkins in early 1967 set up a secret police investigation into Hanratty's Rhyl alibi. Det Chief Superintendent Derek Nimmo took charge of this so called investigation, went to Rhyl for 6 or 7 days and interviewed witnesses who had no legal representation. There were no independent observers at these interviews to confirm all that what was spoken between police and witnessses. The resulting report, unsurprisingly, several weeks later was a complete whitewash.
The Hanratty family and their supporters were fobbed off time after time in the ensuing years. They knew James inside out, they knew his character, they knew what he was and was not capable of doing. James Hanratty senior looked his son straight in the eyes after his arrest and asked James junior if he committed this awful crime. The nature of Hanratty's reply and his demeanour convinced his father there and then that he was not the A6 murder.

I think Victor has already pointed out that a conspiracy theory is self-fulfiilling.
Your bible on this seems to be the book by Paul Foot, I haven't read it but from a quote of his posted on this thread and that of Woffinden(is that the correct spelling) I have spotted disinformation. As with just about everything else he did this was coloured by his politics ie "kick the establishment."
In the same position as Hanratty's father, mine would have always believed me but that doesn't mean that I was incapable of lying to him.
If you want to turn your face against the irrefutable facts then there's nothing I or anybody else can do about it.

All the best
Johnl
PS Were you serious about the impotent rapist?