a6 murder

[johnl]

Victor

It's extremely interesting Victor that you choose the word fabulous.The literal meaning of the word fabulous is barely credible, exaggerated, of the nature of a fable. It is indeed derived from the word fable which means a story not based on fact, a false statement. a lie. Deduce from this what you will.

Victor used the word "fabulous" in a colloquial sense and that is the way I and any reasonable person would take it. To take it any other way is frankly disingenuous and only serves to illustrate the paucity of your arguments!

johnl

[Victor]

Well I suppose I could have used the word "fantastic"

[johnl]

fantadtic

Well I suppose I could have used the word "fantastic"

"fanciful or capricious", "imaginary or groundless" Not a good idea !
I think "excellent" serves the purpose "
Picking up individual words detracts from having to deal with your arguments"
All the best

johnl

[Victor]

Hence the laughing smilie at the end... I presumed it derives from "fantasy" although is now taken colloquially to have a similar meaning to fabulous, i.e., highly superior.

Marvellous? Amazing? Aren't they the same.

[caz]

Hi Caz
I'm not being funny but read my post #1882 again. You have totally misunderstood what I have written. I am talking about where has the other DNA gone from the hanky!

Regards
Reg

Hi Reg,

I'm not being funny either, but I am not talking about the hankie. I'm asking you about your theory for how JH's DNA got on the knicker fragment and (as Victor says) how the rapist's original semen evidence (by which his blood group was determined) disappeared from the same fragment.

That’s what has to be addressed if you want to claim that the DNA evidence on the knickers that proved Hanratty was the rapist is unsafe. The hankie, as we all seem to agree, would not prove guilt by itself as there remains the possibility that it was planted. So it is irrelevant to the specific questions I’m asking you to address here.

Back to you.

Love,

Caz
X

[johnl]

Hello Steve,Caz,Jimbow et al
I have been away from the thread for a few days and I have just gone through all the outstanding posts.
I trust you all understand now why I lost it with Reg!!
I have nearly completed my first (cursory) reading of Foot's book kindly donated by Tony (his very own copy no less!) and have noticed what appear to be a few anomalies which I will investigate when I have read it a second, more detailed, time and come back on but I have to admit that it is a very good, easy read,which, considering the subject matter, is quite an achievement.

All the best
johnl

[caz]

Lucky Jim

Hi All,

Let’s assume Hanratty is innocent for a moment and try not to rely on anything fabulous, fantastic or downright mythical to make him so.

Whoever raped VS called himself Jim, so either this was coincidence or he was out to frame Hanratty from the start. So far so good.

After the crime, whoever is framing Hanratty (the real killer or someone protecting him) obtains one of his used hankies, wraps it round the murder weapon and hides it where he knows Hanratty would typically hide stuff and where it is bound to be found. (He could not know in 1961 that the hankie would ever be proved to be Hanratty’s so that’s just a lucky bonus for when the DNA evidence is revealed 40 years later.)

He also makes sure that more evidence to incriminate Hanratty will be found at the Vienna Hotel.

Now he has to sit tight and wait. He probably hasn’t given a thought to Hanratty’s blood group or possible alibi, but if he turns out to have a different blood group from the real rapist, or had been asked to sign that register in Rhyl when he was meant to be committing the rape, the whole fit-up will collapse and the police will be looking for other suspects and asking some pretty awkward questions of anyone who had offered information leading to Hanratty.

But the fates are against Hanratty, who shares the rapist’s blood group and has no documentary proof of being elsewhere when the crime was committed.

Next up, VS believes she recognises his voice as the one she was forced to listen to, on and off for several hours, before her lover was finally shot dead and she was raped and shot. Bad luck again for Jim. Or did the man using his name also take care to disguise his own voice for the duration? If so, he not only cleverly anticipated the possibility of a witness surviving to tell the tale, but also that the voice, unusually, would become the prime identification factor for that witness, and not the face. Does that mean the real killer also did his best not to let his victims see his face - a face that was presumably nothing like this Jim he was busy framing?

This bad luck didn’t end when Hanratty was found guilty, but followed him beyond the grave. Whoever framed him to start with would not have believed their luck if they were alive to hear the DNA evidence. Poor Jim. Unluckily for him, some of his DNA had found its way onto the knicker fragment that had originally yielded evidence of the real rapist’s blood group. All would still have been well if that evidence had survived to reveal a third male DNA profile, in addition to that of MG and JH. But sod’s law meant that the real rapist had not produced any sperm that would otherwise have provided this third profile, but merely enough fluid to show he had the same blood group as ‘Lucky Jim’.

If anyone wrote a novel along these lines they’d be shot for insulting their readers’ intelligence.

Love,

Caz
X

[JamesDean]

Hi Reg,

I'm not being funny either, but I am not talking about the hankie. I'm asking you about your theory for how JH's DNA got on the knicker fragment and (as Victor says) how the rapist's original semen evidence (by which his blood group was determined) disappeared from the same fragment.

Hi Caz

We have no proof that the fragment ever had the rapist's semen on it. The knickers did have semen stains and the blood group of the rapist was determined from the stains on some part of the knickers. It was never said that the blood typing was done specifically on the crotch area and it was certainly not done from the fragment as the fragment was cut out of the crotch area at a later date. The stain ran for 5" up the back of the knickers apparently so maybe that's where the blood typing was carried out. Dr Grant may have inadvertently snipped a tiny fragment from an area of knicker that didn't have the rapist's semen on it and if there was no rapist's semen there would be no DNA either. The rapist's DNA didn't disappear it simply wasn't on that part of the knickers. Don't forget that Gregsten had also had sex with VS so perhaps the only semen stain on the crotch area and, hence, the fragment, is his. Someone said earlier that a nurse at the hospital had commented on something strange about the way VS was wearing her underwear when she was admitted. Perhaps when she put them back on again after the rape they were back to front and any leakage of fluids were not on the crotch area at all. Maybe that's why the stains extended for 5" up the back of the article. Maybe just maybe the rapist's semen never got onto the crotch area. Perhaps the staining on the crotch area was from her earlier activity with Gregsten.The only time the fragment was tested was in 1995 and 2002 for DNA. Is there proof that the fragment ever had the rapist's semen on it and not just Michael Gregsten's and Valerie Storie's bodily fluids ... and JH contamination of course!

Every argument for and against has a counter argument.

Love
James
x

[johnl]

DNA evidence

[[/B]

Hi Caz

We have no proof that the fragment ever had the rapist's semen on it. The knickers did have semen stains and the blood group of the rapist was determined from the stains on some part of the knickers. It was never said that the blood typing was done specifically on the crotch area. The stain ran for 5" up the back of the knickers apparently so maybe that's where the blood typing was carried out. Dr Grant may have inadvertently snipped a tiny fragment from an area of knicker that didn't have the rapist's semen on it and if there was no rapist's semen there would be no DNA either. The rapist's DNA didn't disappear it simply wasn't on that part of the knickers. Don't forget that Gregsten had also had sex with VS so perhaps the only semen stain on the fragment is his. Someone said earlier that a nurse at the hospital had commented on something strange about the way VS was wearing her underwear when she was admitted. Perhaps when she put them back on again after the rape they were back to front and any leakage of fluids were not on the crotch area at all. Maybe that's why the stains extended for 5" up the back of the article. Maybe just maybe the rapist's semen never got onto the crotch area at all. Perhaps the staining on the crotch area was from her earlier activity with Gregsten.The only time the fragment was tested was in 1995 and 2002 for DNA. Is there proof that the fragment ever had the rapist's semen on it and not just Michael Gregsten's and Valerie Storie's bodily fluids ... and JH contamination of course!

Every argument for and against has a counter argument.

Love
James
x

Hello my little terrier!
As I have pointed out before, whether somebody else's DNA was on a discarded piece of the knickers is irrelevant, what IS relevant is that JH's DNA was distribited in such a way as would be consistent with sexual intercourse having taken place between VS and JH and by implication not consistent with it having been splashed or poured on the piece of fabric. I can tell you that whether the knickers were replaced back-to-front or inside-out the result would have been pretty much the same! Plus, of course, the extra 5" at the back would have taken care of most eventualities.

All the best
johnl

[JamesDean]

[[/B]

Hello my little terrier!
As I have pointed out before, whether somebody else's DNA was on a discarded piece of the knickers is irrelevant, what IS relevant is that JH's DNA was distribited in such a way as would be consistent with sexual intercourse having taken place between VS and JH and by implication not consistent with it having been splashed or poured on the piece of fabric. I can tell you that whether the knickers were replaced back-to-front or inside-out the result would have been pretty much the same! Plus, of course, the extra 5" at the back would have taken care of most eventualities.

All the best
johnl

Hello johnl

The relevant passage in the judgment to which you are referring is as follows:

125. But that is to ignore the results of the DNA profiling. With regard to the knicker fragment we have what Dr Whitaker would describe as a typical distribution of male and female DNA following an act of sexual intercourse leading to the obvious inference that the male contribution came from James Hanratty.

This is followed by:

For that not to be the case we would have to suppose that the DNA of the rapist, also of blood group O, had either degraded so as to become undetectable or had been masked by James Hanratty’s DNA during the course of a contaminating event.

I would add to that ... or else the DNA of the rapist had never been present on that part of the knicker from where the fragment had been cut.

See my post #1928 for an explanation of how that could come about. This is a possibility that was overlooked at the appeal.

[Victor]

Just thought I'd throw in this from http://www.hmcourts-service.gov.uk/j...6/HANRATTY.htm

Para 115. All the exhibits, including those mentioned, were produced at the committal proceedings which took place between 22 November 1961 and 5 December 1961. If the usual procedures of the time were followed it would seem doubtful that any one of the exhibits, barring possibly the gun and certain of the cartridges, would ever have been removed from its packaging or container. Even so, as Mr Mansfield points out and the respondent concedes, the possibility that there was contact between the various exhibits cannot be excluded altogether.

Which seems to contrasict Michael Hanratty's "thrown in a box" statement.

[johnl]

DNA evidence

Hello johnl

The relevant passage in the judgment to which you are referring is as follows:

125. But that is to ignore the results of the DNA profiling. With regard to the knicker fragment we have what Dr Whitaker would describe as a typical distribution of male and female DNA following an act of sexual intercourse leading to the obvious inference that the male contribution came from James Hanratty.

This is followed by:

For that not to be the case we would have to suppose that the DNA of the rapist, also of blood group O, had either degraded so as to become undetectable or had been masked by James Hanratty’s DNA during the course of a contaminating event.

I would add to that ... or else the DNA of the rapist had never been present on that part of the knicker from where the fragment had been cut.

See my post #1928 for an explanation of how that could come about. This is a possibility that was overlooked at the appeal.

Hello James
For the rapist's DNA not to have been there would mean that the rapist had not had sexual intercourse with VS and therefore he would not have been a rapist!

All the best
johnl

[Victor]

Hello johnl

The relevant passage in the judgment to which you are referring is as follows:

125. But that is to ignore the results of the DNA profiling. With regard to the knicker fragment we have what Dr Whitaker would describe as a typical distribution of male and female DNA following an act of sexual intercourse leading to the obvious inference that the male contribution came from James Hanratty.

This is followed by:

For that not to be the case we would have to suppose that the DNA of the rapist, also of blood group O, had either degraded so as to become undetectable or had been masked by James Hanratty’s DNA during the course of a contaminating event.

I would add to that ... or else the DNA of the rapist had never been present on that part of the knicker from where the fragment had been cut.

See my post #1928 for an explanation of how that could come about. This is a possibility that was overlooked at the appeal.

Hi James,

What about para 113?
"They were found to be stained with seminal fluid in the area of the crotch and at the back for five inches upwards from the crotch. Vaginal fluid from Valerie Storie was also present. There were smaller quantities of seminal fluid of blood group AB assumed to have come at some earlier stage from Michael Gregsten."

So any argument about the rapist not producing semen can now be safely dismissed.

[JamesDean]

Hello James
For the rapist's DNA not to have been there would mean that the rapist had not had sexual intercourse with VS and therefore he would not have been a rapist!

All the best
johnl

The DNA test was on the fragment; the fragment came from the crotch area of the knickers. The crotch area may never have come into contact with the rapist's semen (see my post #1928) if VS was wearing her knickers after the event in a strange way as had been commented on by a nurse at the hospital. There is no doubt that the rapist's semen leaked onto some part of the garment but there is no proof that it was on the crotch area. The crotch area was undoubtedly stained with semen and vaginal fluid from the earlier sexual activity between MG and VS.

If the rapist's semen didn't get onto the crotch area then it couldn't be on the fragment. No magic disappearing trick needed to achieve that.

Regards
James

[johnl]

The DNA test was on the fragment; the fragment came from the crotch area of the knickers. The crotch area may never have come into contact with the rapist's semen (see my post #1928) if VS was wearing her knickers after the event in a strange way as had been commented on by a nurse at the hospital. There is no doubt that the rapist's semen leaked onto some part of the garment but there is no proof that it was on the crotch area. The crotch area was undoubtedly stained with semen and vaginal fluid from the earlier sexual activity between MG and VS.

If the rapist's semen didn't get onto the crotch area then it couldn't be on the fragment. No magic disappearing trick needed to achieve that.

Regards
James

Hell James
If the rapist had sexual intercourse with VS the semen HAD to get on to the crotch area whether they were put on back-to-front or inside out, where else was it supposed to go?
All the best
johnl