a6 murder

[johnl]

Hello johnl

It appears from the records that Dr Grant examined the green jacket and trousers on 28 December 1961 and Valerie Storie’s slips and knickers the following day. It was on this latter occasion that a portion of the crotch area of the knickers was removed and thereafter, as seems clear, stored separately from the other exhibits including the knickers from which it had been excised.

I can only speculate like you as to how that piece of knicker was presented in court. Perhaps it was simply to demonstrate that there was a semen stain without having to have the knickers passed around in court, thereby minimising embarrassment for Miss Storie. I doubt that it was anything to do with blood group as that had been identified a long time before the piece of crotch had been excised from the knickers.

Regards
James

Hello James
We are not speculating HOW the exhibit was presented in court but WHY.
Why on earth would they want to demonstrate a semen stain? Nobody was disputing that there was a semen stain, there had to be a reason for keeping it as evidence and we both know what that is don't we?
Again, what was it evidence of, if not the blood group?

all the best
johnl

[JamesDean]

Hello James
We are not speculating HOW the exhibit was presented in court but WHY.
Why on earth would they want to demonstrate a semen stain? Nobody was disputing that there was a semen stain, there had to be a reason for keeping it as evidence and we both know what that is don't we?
Again, what was it evidence of, if not the blood group?
all the best
johnl

Morning johnl

You are simply speculating! We have no idea which part of the staining on the knickers was used to determine blood type. In any case the blood group was not strong evidence. It only showed that the alleged rapist was a type 'O' secretor. Around 45% of the population are type 'O' and 80% are secretors. Alphon was type 'O' secretor so he must have done it eh!

As far as the 1997 DNA test is concerned, finding male DNA means a Y-chromosome was present, not necessarily that it came from a sperm fraction. There was an assumption in the 2002 judgment that any contaminant would have to be sperm. Wrong in my opinion!

Regards
James

[JamesDean]

Dr John Whitaker

This report details another case where the controversial LCN method of DNA analysis was used. The Dr John Whitaker mentioned in this report is the same Dr John Whitaker who carried out the tests in the James Hanratty case.

Interesting! Are you still convinced that the Hanratty DNA test was conclusive?

Semen Samples Analysed Using Controversial Method


Sunday, January 29, 2006

When gardai sent the semen found on Robert Holohan’s body to Dr John Whitaker for DNA analysis, they had good grounds to believe that the British forensic scientist could tell them whether it belonged to the boy’s killer.

Whitaker, based at the Forensic Science Service laboratory in Yorkshire, had risen to prominence in recent years due to his development of a ground-breaking method of DNA analysis known as low copy number (LCN). Having employed the method for the first time in January 1999, Whitaker’s team now oversees around 80 LCN tests every week.

At his lab in Wetherby, Whitaker examined the first of the two semen samples in the Midleton case early last year. The sample had been taken from Holohan’s left hand by state pathologist Dr Marie Cassidy.

Wayne O’Donoghue, who was last week sentenced to four years imprisonment for the manslaughter of Holohan, had turned himself in the day after Holohan’s funeral last January and confessed to having accidentally killed the boy.

He claimed that he had lost his temper after the boy threw stones at his car. He denied that he had ever intended to kill Holohan. If Whitaker’s forensic analysis established a link between the semen samples and O’Donoghue, the 20-year-old’s claims would have been open to serious question.

The LCN technique is a revolutionary one that has enabled scientists and law enforcers around the world to revisit and solve crimes committed decades ago.

In DNA analysis, small traces of DNA found in bodily fluids, fingerprints and human tissue are ‘‘amplified’’ to the point where a match can be established with a suspect.

In the conventional method, ‘‘amplification’’ of a sample’s DNA characteristics takes place 28 times.

With Whitaker’s LCN technique, the process occurs 34 times.

According to Whitaker, every stage of LCN analysis is repeated twice to ensure that results are not distorted. It is a painstaking process and his analysis of the semen found on Holohan’s body would have taken some time.

Whitaker’s first results led the scientist to conclude that the possibility that the semen could have belonged to anyone other than O’Donoghue was one in 77million.

On receiving Whitaker’s report, the Director of Public Prosecutions decided that O’Donoghue should be charged with murdering Holohan.

The fact that O’Donoghue was at one stage suspected of abusing Robert only emerged in court last week after Robert’s mother Majella questioned why semen had been found on her son’s body.

‘‘Our doctors have told us to try and get on with our lives but how can we, knowing there was semen found on my son’s body?” she said.

O’Donoghue’s solicitor has denied that his client is guilty of any sexual offence and is understood to be considering taking legal action against a number of newspapers which reported comments made by the Holohans as they were leaving the court last Tuesday.

It is understood that Whitaker was asked by gardai to examine a second semen sample - one taken from a mat in the bathroom of the O’Donoghue’s home. O’Donoghue had laid Robert’s body on the mat after killing him.

The sample taken from the bathroom caused Whitaker some concern.

He found that the sample contained DNA that was not identical, but similar, to that contained in the first. The possibility that ‘‘cross transfer’’ had taken place forced him to reconsider his original findings.

He notified the authorities of this and retracted his earlier views on the statistical likelihood that the semen belonged to O’Donoghue.

It is believed that following this, gardai sent the same samples to another team of British-based forensic scientists for examination.

According to reports, these scientists also disputed Whitaker’s initial findings. The DPP decided that no mention of the semen samples should be made in court.

The method used by Whitaker, while lauded by many in scientific circles as an important break through, does have its detractors.

Last month, Whitaker was involved in the trial into the murder of backpacker Peter Falconio in the Australian outback. Whitaker had been asked by the Australian police to carry out tests on DNA found on handcuffs that were used to tie up Falconio’s girlfriend.

Giving evidence at the trial, Dr Katrin Both, an experienced forensic scientist, said she had ‘‘a large number of concerns’’ about LCN.

‘‘I think it [LCN] is very dangerous,” she said. ‘‘He’s [Whitaker] pushing science to its limits.”

Both was grilled by the prosecution team and did later concede that Whitaker’s results were not spurious.

The judge in the case later concluded that LCN had a ‘‘sufficient scientific basis’’ and the results produced by the British forensic scientist were admissible.

The method, however, does not meet with universal acceptance in courts around the world. At present, DNA evidence procured through LCN is not admissible in courts in the US.

Detectives there are known to have used the method to establish leads, but dare not take the findings before a judge.

Despite the work of Whitaker and a number of other forensic scientists, the method is still deemed insufficiently accurate to be relied on in serious cases and is capable of producing misleading or spurious results.

According to Dr Lawrence Kobilinsky, professor of forensic science at the John Jay College of Criminal Justice in New York, unless the method is refined to ensure higher reliability, it will not be used by law-enforcement agencies such as the FBI.

‘‘LCN is somewhat contentious and has been contentious for a number of years,” Kobilinsky told The Sunday Business Post.

‘‘When it first appeared, the Brits took to trying to improve its reliability so they could use it. It is unreliable at times but this doesn’t mean it can’t be improved to the point where it could be used in forensics.

‘‘There are different ways of carrying out low-copy number testing and the FBI feels it is important to standardise the method. It can sometimes produce spurious results, so they decided not to use it.”

He said that, in some cases, important gene strands could ‘‘drop out’’ of LCN data. In other cases, irrelevant and misleading genetic information could appear in results.

‘‘When you carry out LCN testing, you are boosting your sensitivity to such high levels you start to see things that might not be relevant to the evidence,” he said.

[caz]

This is getting a trifle silly, guys. I admire the determination to undermine the DNA evidence, and the inventive nature of that undermining, but seriously, enough's enough.

I am challenging the assumption that the rapist's DNA must be on the fragment. I accept that it must be somewhere on the knickers but not necessarily on the fragment. The rapist's DNA did not disappear from the fragment by magic and neither did it get overridden by JH contamination ... it was simply never there in the first place!

Hi James,

You can be sure I'll be holding you to the bit I have emphasised above.

We don't know which part of the knickers they blood typed the semen stains from. It's hardly likely in 1961 they would test different parts of the garment. Once they had the blood type they would consider it 'job done'.

Check out this again from Victor:

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.

I'm afraid it beggars belief that after determining the two distinct blood groups and the respective quantities of each man's seminal fluid on those knickers that they would not also have recorded if only AB fluid was on the crotch while all the O fluid was elsewhere. I'm also at a loss to understand how you think the two groups could have been determined without testing 'different parts of the garment', unless you are suggesting they didn't actually bother testing the crotch at all, but found both blood groups together on the other area of staining and considered this 'job done'.

Then Dr Grant comes along and examines the knickers and decides to remove a portion of the crotch area, apparently oblivious to the fact that the crotch had either escaped testing or was found to have escaped the rapist's attention, but nobody had thought to make a note of it or inform Dr Grant.

And this is all in addition to the knickers accidentally becoming contaminated with a sample of JH's bodily fluid in such a way as to produce a DNA pattern that 40 years down the line will prove:

'wholly consistent with sexual intercourse having taken place in which Valerie Storie and James Hanratty were the participants.' [125]

I can hear Harry Hill behind me, saying "What are the chances of that happening?"

Far fetched, Harry? "Not much!"

Now then, guys. Any thoughts on the following:

By way of postscript we should record that it has been agreed by Mr Sweeney and Mr Mansfield that on the evidence now available Peter Alphon could not have been the murderer. It is understood that this agreement arose out of the DNA evidence. [128]

I'm not quite sure I follow this reasoning or get what it's based on. Even if all parties conceded that the possibility of contamination (together with the real rapist's DNA not showing up at all) was too remote to be a realistic proposition, 'too remote' does not equal 'could not'. So what's the evidential link I'm missing here?

Love,

Caz
X

[reg1965]

Evidential Link

Hi Caz
Read paragraph 119 of the appeal ruling.
Reg

[johnl]

DNA evidence

Hello caz
Very concise and to the point! You have delivered the killer blow.
Still, I really do admire James' tenacity!
To be honest p128 puzzles me too, although there is absolutely no evidence, apart from the DNA, to link Alphon directly to the crime is there?
All the best
johnl

[JamesDean]

Hello caz
Very concise and to the point! You have delivered the killer blow.
Still, I really do admire James' tenacity!

All the best
johnl

You wish!

[JamesDean]

Hi Caz

There is no evidence that any particular part of the knickers was tested for determining the blood group. Don't forget they were not looking for DNA, they were looking for the blood group of the rapist. I expect they chose the heaviest area of staining which sounds more likely to be the area that extends upwards for 5" from the crotch. They can't possibly have tested all the staining on the knickers as that would effectively destroy the evidence and once they had the blood group information they had no reason for doing more tests. Of course I don't know which area was tested, nobody does, but there is no suggestion it was the crotch area.

Now then, guys. Any thoughts on the following:

By way of postscript we should record that it has been agreed by Mr Sweeney and Mr Mansfield that on the evidence now available Peter Alphon could not have been the murderer. It is understood that this agreement arose out of the DNA evidence. [128]

I'm not quite sure I follow this reasoning or get what it's based on. Even if all parties conceded that the possibility of contamination (together with the real rapist's DNA not showing up at all) was too remote to be a realistic proposition, 'too remote' does not equal 'could not'. So what's the evidential link I'm missing here?

Love,

Caz
X

The evidential link is that they didn't find any of Alphon's DNA. But that is only valid for the fragment ... and if the LCN analysis was accurate. The logic they used is simply "Hanratty did it so it couldn't be Alphon".

Read my post #1953 and you can clearly see that LCN is giving false results even in recent times, let alone a decade ago when the Hanratty tests were performed, and under the stewardship of the very same Dr John Whitaker who did the Hanratty test. I don't need to undermine LCN it is simply not proved sufficiently to be declared accurate for evidential purposes.

The argument as to whether the fragment is contaminated or not and whether it ever had the DNA of the rapist on it is a separate argument entirely.

Love
James
x

[Victor]

Hi Caz
Read paragraph 119 of the appeal ruling.
Reg

Para 119 in full:-
"The file containing the fragment from the knickers was discovered in 1991 by Jennifer Wiles. It was still packaged as described except that the cellophane package was no longer intact. Also found in the file were some broken slides and slide holders possibly having contained hairs and fibres collected at the scene of the murder. There were also two polythene bags each containing hairs thought now to have come from Alphon. There was another polythene bag containing a number of bullets and significantly, so Mr Mansfield submits, a polythene bag containing a small rubber bung and fragments of glass including a curved piece suggesting that the polythene bag had at one time contained a glass vial or tube."

Quote at end of para 120:-
Mr Greenhalgh, who saw the file and examined the fabric in 1995, told us that he considered the risk of contamination to the fabric to be very low. We quote from his evidence.

"As I examined the item, the piece of blue material from the knickers was in a sealed packet inside the two envelopes. I did not observe any damage to that packaging which I considered likely to be a risk of contamination. As far as I was concerned they were sealed, although the outer envelopes were not sealed there was no indication of any liquid damage on the brown paper envelopes, as might have been expected if a liquid sample had leaked onto them."

Next!

[johnl]

You wish!

I wouldn't expect anything less from you James!

All the best
johnl

[JamesDean]

I wouldn't expect anything less from you James!

All the best
johnl

Hi johnl

You didn't say anything about my post #1953 ... simply ignore the fact that LCN even in recent years is giving spurious results and we are supposed to accept the results from a decade ago, when the technique was just being developed, as concrete proof!

Pull the other one!


Regards
James

[johnl]

DNA evidence

Hello James
I don't think you realise how a trial works. The prosecution presents facts and has to substantiate EACH ONE with backing evidence.
For instance " This is the gun that was used" They have to produce the gun, the bullets from the victim and a ballistics expert to link the two.
"JH was seen in Avondale Crescent". They have to produce witnesses to that effect.
"The rapists blood group was O secretor". They have to produce evidence to support this, what other piece of evidence supports this except the crotch of the knickers?
All the best
johnl

[JamesDean]

Hello James
I don't think you realise how a trial works. The prosecution presents facts and has to substantiate EACH ONE with backing evidence.
For instance " This is the gun that was used" They have to produce the gun, the bullets from the victim and a ballistics expert to link the two.
"JH was seen in Avondale Crescent". They have to produce witnesses to that effect.
"The rapists blood group was O secretor". They have to produce evidence to support this, what other piece of evidence supports this except the crotch of the knickers?
All the best
johnl

Hello johnl

How does waving a piece of knicker about in court prove that the rapist is blood group 'O' secretor? How can the jury see that from a piece of fabric?

The blood group was determined long before a slice of crotch was removed from the knickers and you have no proof that the blood group was determined from the staining on the crotch area.

Did you read post #1953 or are you simply ignoring it because it doesn't support your case for the infallibility of the DNA test?

Regards
James

[johnl]

DNA evidence

Hi johnl

You didn't say anything about my post #1953 ... simply ignore the fact that LCN even in recent years is giving spurious results and we are supposed to accept the results from a decade ago, when the technique was just being developed, as concrete proof!

Pull the other one!


Regards
James

Hello James
I didn't respond to your post 1953 because it has all been dealt with many times before. I have pointed out to you on many occasions that there are two aspects to the DNA evidence and BOTH have to be dealt with TOGETHER. As I have said to you many times before you are banging away at one of the strands and ignoring the other.
You are trying to find ingenious ways of finding that the original rapists DNA wasn't present whilst ignoring the distribution.
I repeat that the judges found that the possibility of BOTH aspects occuring by chance,ON TWO SEPARATE PIECES OF FABRIC are "beyond belief" and any reasonable person would have to agree with them!!!!
All the best
johnl

[johnl]

Hello johnl

How does waving a piece of knicker about in court prove that the rapist is blood group 'O' secretor? How can the jury see that from a piece of fabric?

Hello James,
I think, after Caz's post you are being deliberately obtuse

All the best
johnl