a6 murder

[Dupplin Muir]

A question about the gun/handkerchief

I've read most of the posts in this thread, but have probably missed some, so forgive me if these points have already been addressed.

What is the consensus on why JH put the gun and handkerchief on the bus (if he did!). Was he attempting to get rid of it, or was he planning to recover it at a later date? If the former, then why not throw it in the river? If the latter, wasn't he giving himself a lot of work? I make no claim to be an expert on buses, but it seems that vehicles are often given different numbers and assigned to different routes, so how many buses would JH have to search before he found his gun?

The other problem is the handkerchief. If Hanratty had really hidden the gun, and the hanky was not distinctive enough to be tied to him, why did he identify it as his? In his position I'd have denied it, and there would have been nothing the police could do to prove otherwise.

On the other hand, if the hanky was distinctive, then it would explain why JH identified it (since denying the fact would make him look bad), but it raises the question of why he would link himself to the murder in this way. Why not wrap the gun in a piece of newspaper? On balance it seems more likely that someone else put the gun on the bus, and used one of Hanratty's snotty hankies to incriminate him. Since JH had no idea why the police were asking him about his handkerchief, he had no hesitation in identifying it as one of his.

I'd be very grateful for any comments on these points.

DM

[Steve]

If you are looking for an honest answer from one student of the A6 murder I would tell you that I think it pretty certain that the gun, ammunition and hanky were left on the bus by Dixie France. I do not know this for sure, but that would be my own educated guess!

I hope this helps.

Kind regards,
Steve

[Steve]

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.

Hi Tony

Morals were different in those days, and I think that quite a lot of mis-information was given out at the start of the enquiry!

KR
Steve

[Graham]

My own feeling about the gun + bullets + hankie is that they were very likely placed on the bus by a rather disingenuous and unthinking James Hanratty.

However, with reference to earlier posts by my own goodself, I've postulated that the gun came originally from Dixie France, and to get rid of it after the murder JH handed it back to Dixie, perhaps with a threat of violence, to dipose of it. In which case, Dixie, who already knew of JH's preferred method of disposal of unwanted goods, popped it under the seat of the bus both as a means of ridding himself of the damn thing and also at the same time incriminating JH.

I cannot believe that JH didn't simply toss the gun into a ditch somewhere, or into the Thames, or wherever.

Cheers,

Graham

[JamesDean]

Forensic errors by FSS

This was reported by the BBC in December 2006. It's related to the Omagh bomb trial of Sean Hoey but is significant to this thread as the same technique was used in 2002 to analyse DNA in the Hanratty case.

Trial told of forensic 'errors'

A review of the work of the Forensic Science service in Northern Ireland found mistakes in more than a third of cases, the Omagh bomb trial has heard.

In the last six years, the service had its accreditation suspended twice, after revelations of a falsified signature and lab practice concerns.

About 1,200 cases were checked and 455 were found to contain mistakes.

Sean Hoey, 37, of County Armagh denies a total of 58 charges, including murder as a result of the 1998 Omagh bombing.

Mr Hoey is an electrician from Molly Road, Jonesborough.

The Omagh bomb trial heard that a review of the FSNI's work was carried out by a consultancy firm, during a time when the UK Accreditation Service had suspended the service's accreditation.

A series of cases were checked between 2001 and 2003. In that two-year period it was responsible for about 2,400 cases - of those, a sample 1,200 were reviewed.

The firm found 455 of the cases contained mistakes - more than a third.

The acting operations director of the Forensic Science Services Northern Ireland, Samuel James Speers, said the errors were "generally administrative" and they were not all the responsibility of that agency.

But the judge, Mr Justice Weir, asked if that mattered.

He added: "Whether the errors were caused by the police or the laboratory, errors still resulted".

On Tuesday, Mr Speers is expected to face further questioning about the reasons for the lab's accreditation being suspended twice - once in 2001 and once in 2003.

Earlier there were more questions about the reliability of Low Copy Number DNA - a key part of the prosecution case and an issue that has dominated the trial for weeks.

Dr Peter Gill a forensic scientist and expert in the field accepted that there was still a "lot of confusion" about the technique and differences in how it is used worldwide.

The trial continues.

[JamesDean]

Eventually Sean Hoey walked free from court. This is another BBC report in December 2007 ...

Verdict raises DNA evidence doubt

The case against Sean Hoey, who has been cleared of 56 charges including the murders of 29 people in the Omagh bomb attack, was essentially built on forensic evidence - in particular DNA.

The Forensic Science Service (FSS), told Mr Justice Weir they had found the defendant's DNA on items relating not just to the Omagh bombing but several other bomb scenes as well.

The FSS claimed to have found Mr Hoey's DNA using a technique they had developed themselves, called Low Copy Number (LCN) DNA.

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, and the defence's continual questioning of the method was aided by a test result from a failed bomb explosion in Lisburn, in April 1998, that Sean Hoey was also charged with.

When the defused device was analysed using the FSS's technique, the strongest initial DNA profile was found to be that of a teenage boy from Nottinghamshire.

In an attempt to bolster their case, the prosecution called Peter Gill, one of the inventors of the LCN technique. But under cross examination he said some of the results put forward by the prosecution were "valueless", and that LCN was a complex area in which there were "shades of grey".

That led Mr Justice Weir to say: "When this evidence is presented on behalf of the prosecution, no-one talks about it in terms of shades of grey. It's put forward as evidence I can rely on."

Thursday's verdict will throw up considerable questions over the merits of LCN testing and will bolster the arguments of those who have always held reservations about the technique.

Sheila Willis, head of the Irish Republic's Forensic Science Laboratory, told the BBC that they did not use LCN because "the results could be ambiguous".

Britain's second largest forensic company, LGC Forensics, have also long harboured doubts about the LCN method.

The company's head of research and development, Paul Debenham, told the BBC they had devised their own method for analysing small amounts of DNA, which he says, "not only establishes as many degrees of information as you can achieve from the Low Copy Number methodology, but in fact it has got some reduced degrees of complication that can affect some of these very high sensitivity analyses".

LGC's technique has also not been validated by outside experts - they are planning to have it scrutinised next year. But it undoubtedly raised further questions about the merits of LCN testing, questions that have allowed Sean Hoey to walk away Belfast Crown Court a free man.

[JamesDean]

The police then suspended the use of LCN DNA testing in December 2007 ...

Police have suspended the use of a controversial DNA technique following the Omagh bomb verdict.

Earlier, the Crown Prosecution Service said it would review live prosecutions in England and Wales using Low Copy Number (LCN) DNA testing.

Northern Ireland's Chief Constable, Sir Hugh Orde, also said he had instigated an immediate review of cases there.

Omagh suspect Sean Hoey was cleared on Thursday of a total of 58 charges, including 29 murders.

Tony Lake, spokesman for the Association of Chief Police Officers (Acpo), announced the interim suspension of the use of LCN DNA testing by the Forensic Science Service (FSS).

He said: "In England and Wales DNA evidence has to be corroborated by other evidence.

"However, as a precautionary measure the Crown Prosecution Service are currently reviewing the pending cases in which Low Copy DNA profiling is to form part of the prosecution case to see whether any may be affected.

"The review will take into account the terms of the judgement and the weight that is to be attached to the DNA evidence."

The BBC's Michael Buchanan said that Acpo produced a confidential report in August which called for the technique to be urgently reviewed.

The independent forensic science regulator will be carrying out the review.

The post was created by the Home Office in July this year to monitor the standards of evidence provided by the FSS and other private sector companies.

LCN allows genetic profiles of offenders to be created from very small tissue samples that have only been detectable with new techniques available since 1999.

These can be as tiny as a millionth the size of a grain of salt which can amount to as little as a few cells of skin or sweat left in a fingerprint.

The FSS say they have used LCN DNA about 21,000 times and generated profiles from items such as matchsticks, weapon handles and grabbed clothing.

To do this, the minute samples must be magnified and this is where critics say error can creep in.

The prosecution in the Omagh case claimed that LCN analysis had shown links between the bomb timers used in the attack and Mr Hoey, a south Armagh electrician.

But the judge rejected the use of the technique because it was not yet seen to be at a sufficiently scientific level to be considered evidence.

Following widespread criticism of Northern Ireland police by relatives of Omagh victims, Sir Hugh said: "I have asked for an urgent review of all cases that rely in any way, shape or form on Low Copy Number DNA."

He said it was at the very cutting edge of science and had been used in the trial because of his determination to build a case.

But Sir Hugh said: "It is a vital ingredient of cases in the future which will bring very guilty people to justice."

A spokesman for the Attorney General said that while a small number of active cases would be reviewed as a precaution, there were "no current plans to review past cases".

LCN testing has been used in a number of other high-profile cases.

It has been reported that it was this technique which was used by the FSS in Birmingham to examine DNA samples from the car hired by the McCanns.

Serial rapist Antoni Imiela was caught after his profile was obtained from minute traces of DNA from items of clothing.

And in 2000 Ian Lowther was convicted of the murder of Mary Gregson, who was walking along the Leeds-Liverpool canal towpath in August 1977.

The DNA LCN technique allowed scientists to go back and generate a DNA profile from an old semen stain originally found on the clothing.

Traditional or so-called "gold standard" DNA profiles created using larger samples of genetic material will not be examined under the review.

Michael Buchanan said LCN DNA was only accepted as evidence in two other countries, New Zealand and the Netherlands, because of concerns over its accuracy.

[Limehouse]

If you are looking for an honest answer from one student of the A6 murder I would tell you that I think it pretty certain that the gun, ammunition and hanky were left on the bus by Dixie France. I do not know this for sure, but that would be my own educated guess!

I hope this helps.

Kind regards,
Steve

I've said this before and I'll say it again - I think it highly unlikely that Hanratty walked around with five or so boxes of ammunition on his person. It would surely have been noticed by those who 'witnessed' him walking away from the car the following morning. It would surely have been noticed by Valerie at some point during the incident. People would surely have remembered seeing someone with that much bulk in their pockets and it would have been uncomfortable and awkward to carry.

If I am right, and Hanratty did not have that much bulk on him that night, how did it end up under the bus seat? I suppose that he may have given Dixie France the rest of the bullets (not taken with him but risky to keep) with the gun to dispose of but it's equally possible that someone wanted those bullets to be associated with that gun and that crime.

[johnl]

DNA evidence

Morning James!
The Omagh bomb case was originally introduced in a link on Reg's post 1583 and was fully dealt with by me and (mainly) Victor.

All the best
johnl

[Tony]

Paul Foot.

Good morning everyone,

There seems to be some here that think the only reason for Paul Foot’s ‘Who killed Hanratty’ was written by him in some way to get back at The Establishment. Paul Foot was extremely left wing in his views but I think every newspaper editor would have loved to have him on board.
He was quite simply a magnificent journalist. Have a Google at him and look at the awards he won and the acclaim by people you would not expect.

Because Foot was so very left wing and because you are a former Mason, johnl, I hope you will be able to take a neutral view this week when you read the book.

Amongst Foot’s many books was ‘Murder at the Farm’ about the wrongful conviction of 4 men for the terrible murder of newspaper boy Carl Bridgewater.
The foreman of the jury in that case returned to see the sentence handed down by the judge so incensed was he by the crime and how the prosecution had presented the accused to the court. He went away that day a happy man. No doubt he would have liked to have seen them hang.
Then along comes Paul Foot to investigate. He writes another book, again very persuasive, a TV docu/drama is made and the foreman of the jury is on ITN news calling for a retrial or pardon. He was now 100% convinced in their innocence. They did eventually get a pardon after years in prison, a lot of the time spent on the roof.
The paper boy had been shot in the head at close range by a double barrel shotgun. After the men were in custody the farmer at the next farm was shot in the head by a double barrel shotgun. The police, the prosecution and the jury failed to notice that there may have been a connection.

Now in this case there was no Jean Justice, there was no suggestion that they might have been framed there wasn’t even a stretched hangman’s rope. They could still stand up for themselves. Now what political aims did Paul Foot achieve in this case.

Tony.

[johnl]

Reg1965

Hi johnl
Are you Peter Louis Alphon?
It just seems to me from the posts that you have made thus far, as an outsider, that you seem to show many of the personality traits of Alphon.
When Lord Russell of Liverpool was known to be publishing his book on the case he received incessant and at times obscene phone calls.
Your first and, as you stated probably your last post was to attack arguments put forward by me.
Am I posing a threat to you in same way?
You also say that you are a great disseminator, the meaning of which is to sow, like semen. So was it you who disseminated on VS's undergarments?
Also you plainly do not know anything about science because you have not brought anything new (bar slavish devotion to the court of appeals verdict) to this argument. You leave it all up to Victor (sorry Victor I have no truck with you in this post, but that is the case)
Also you state that you are an accountant and technophobe. I do not know, being a software engineer with over 20 years in the accounting and software business, how an accountant could be a technophobe! The whole industry depends on computers. This leads me to another reason that suspects me that you are Alphon and that is that you are, in fact, a turf accountant! (the dog racing lead me to that one!!)
If you are Alphon then Happy Birthday you old sod! (78 today..you've done well getting to that!)
Many regards
Reg

ps if you aren't Alphon then have a little repsect for Dr John Parrington. How do you know that he has no knowledge of the legal issues in the appeal!

Reg, may I just state my position on this ?
I am quite happy to leave our posts on THE subject and any subsequent "outbursts" either of us may have made and let any interested people make up their own minds as to who won the argument!
For myself I can only say that I am still fighting my corner against a worthy opponent and you will know when I have lost the argument-I will be reduced to sniping from the side-lines!

Lots of love
THe witch-finder general

[Tony]

I've said this before and I'll say it again - I think it highly unlikely that Hanratty walked around with five or so boxes of ammunition on his person. It would surely have been noticed by those who 'witnessed' him walking away from the car the following morning. It would surely have been noticed by Valerie at some point during the incident. People would surely have remembered seeing someone with that much bulk in their pockets and it would have been uncomfortable and awkward to carry.

If I am right, and Hanratty did not have that much bulk on him that night, how did it end up under the bus seat? I suppose that he may have given Dixie France the rest of the bullets (not taken with him but risky to keep) with the gun to dispose of but it's equally possible that someone wanted those bullets to be associated with that gun and that crime.

Great stuff Limehouse,

Does anyone here know exactly how bulky a .38 revolver and 5 boxes of ammunition are?
I don’t know if they would all slip into various pockets without being noticed and there has never been a suggestion, as far as I know, that the gunman had a briefcase or more aptly a violin case to carry the stuff.
Of the pictures I’ve seen of a .38 it looks a pretty big gun and the bullet boxes would be comparatively large.
Personally, being involved in the construction industry, I can only compare it to say a box of 3inch screws and I doubt if you would be able to walk about with five of those in your pockets completely unnoticed. And before anyone says the bullets weren’t 3 inches long, I know that. I am merely suggesting a size comparison.
Certainly, as you say Limehouse, Valerie could not have failed to notice them.

Tony

[Steve]

Hi Tony

It has been said before that the gun and ammunition aspect of this case is one of the most puzzling, and there are many puzzling aspects to the case. The gunman certainly did have a quantity of ammunition on his person, as well as carrying a loaded gun. Miss Storie said that he tapped the bullets in his pocket saying that he felt like a cowboy and that the bullets rattled with a sound like marbles rattling. And of course the gunman reloaded the gun in the lay-by.

As for the rest of the ammunition, if Hanratty dumped the gun and ammunition under the back seat of the bus he had time to collect any additional bullets he was storing elsewhere. Probably in a left luggage locker.

Kind regards,
Steve

[Tony]

Hi Tony

It has been said before that the gun and ammunition aspect of this case is one of the most puzzling, and there are many puzzling aspects to the case. The gunman certainly did have a quantity of ammunition on his person, as well as carrying a loaded gun. Miss Storie said that he tapped the bullets in his pocket saying that he felt like a cowboy and that the bullets rattled with a sound like marbles rattling. And of course the gunman reloaded the gun in the lay-by.

As for the rest of the ammunition, if Hanratty dumped the gun and ammunition under the back seat of the bus he had time to collect any additional bullets he was storing elsewhere. Probably in a left luggage locker.

Kind regards,
Steve

Hi Steve,

Probably best left in the left luggage locker. What could he have been thinking when opening the locker?
“Shall I put the gun and the ammo in here where it’s safe? No I’d better leave it on the bus”.

Tony.

[JamesDean]

Morning James!
The Omagh bomb case was originally introduced in a link on Reg's post 1583 and was fully dealt with by me and (mainly) Victor.
All the best
johnl

Morning johnl

I did see what was written in previous posts. The point is not the Omagh bomb trial per se but the fact that the technique used in the Hanratty DNA analysis is criticised by many experts to this day.

The Omagh bomb trial simply served to bring to the fore that a review is/was urgently needed to determine if the techniques used are valid for evidential purposes. That review was instigated by the regulator (no regulator existed in 2002) to investigate the methods employed in both the extraction/amplification of DNA, the interpretation of results and to advise upon the creation of a national minimum technical standard for low template DNA analysis, to include extraction, quantification/dilution and interpretation criteria.

That review has been completed and recommendations have been made which I don't propose to go into here as this is not a forum for the discussion of in depth DNA analysis except where it has relevance to the A6 murder.

I will just point out though that in an earlier post you chastised reg for, in your view, mistakenly referring to LCN DNA analysis as was mentioned re the Omagh bomb trial and you pointed out that the technique used in the Hanratty tests was PCR. Correct, PCR was used to amplify the DNA material but that is exactly the same technique that is used in LCN DNA analysis which is also referred to as LTDNA.

The overall technique has progressed since 2002 and is more sensitive at lower levels of amplification but even today the technique is not considered to be reliable, hence the review and recommendations.

If standards are inadequate now I wonder how the 2002 standards would fare in a review. I'm not making a criticism of the FSS but stating the obvious that the technique even today is considered the cutting edge of technology and is not without risks. In 2002 the risks of getting a false positive must have be considerably higher.

I don't propose to keep banging on this drum as I would like to forget the DNA and look at the other evidence in the case.

Suffice to say that I don't believe the DNA was conclusive. You can maintain your own position of referring back to the judgment and I am happy for us to have differing views.

Regards
James