a6 murder

[jimarilyn]

The DNA result seems to be irrelevant then. Hanratty did it ... no question ... end of thread! Yes it's bloody boring and it's boring me stupid having to repeat the same facts over and over. The DNA test was not conclusive.

Now ... back to the cornfield ...

Hi JamesDean,

No, I don't believe for one moment that Hanratty did it. I'm sure they'd like to see an end to this thread, they spout the same thing post after post, disregarding all the very valid points you have brought up during your impressive DNA research. Number one rottweiler was only supposed to make one post, that shows how much you can rely on his word. Keep up the good work.

[Steve]

This is specifically for Steve:-

You wouldn't, by chance, have, amongst your wide catalogue of photos, one of Neville and Griffin's dairy near Slough (where they stopped to buy milk from a vending machine and nobody had a tanner?).

It's just that I find these modern-day pics of the scenes of interest ... well, fascinating really!!

Jim

Hello Jim

I am sorry to say no I don't have a photograph of the dairy, and I don't know where it was. If anyone can tell me I'll take the camera along and photograph whatever is there now.

Kind regards,
Steve

[Victor]

Had there been no other sample available to conduct a second test then I am assuming that the result of the first test would have been "... that the DNA evidence standing alone is certain proof of O’Donoghue's guilt. "

The defence could have argued contamination, as was the case, but maybe that argument would have been dismissed as it has been in the Hanratty case. Without the second sample from the bathroom I'm sure that O’Donoghue would have been found guilty of sexual assault. There was no second sample in the Hanratty case ... just the tiny fragment!

Regards
James

No, no, no, no, no!

The semen was O'Donoghue's!

It came from a contamination event and not from a sexual assault.

Furthermore, there's the further evidence (MG's semen) leading to the conclusion that there was "a pattern which is wholly consistent with sexual intercourse having taken place in which Valerie Storie and James Hanratty were the participants". There's no statement like that in the case you quoted.

I appreciate the banging head against wall sentiments, and I feel exactly the same! But nothing you have proposed has withstood further scrutiny.

[Victor]

Hi JamesDean,

No, I don't believe for one moment that Hanratty did it. I'm sure they'd like to see an end to this thread, they spout the same thing post after post, disregarding all the very valid points you have brought up during your impressive DNA research. Number one rottweiler was only supposed to make one post, that shows how much you can rely on his word. Keep up the good work.

Last week I made my feelings clear... Hanratty did it. He should not have been convicted or hung on the evidence available at the original trial.

The highlighted point above is just plain wrong.

I have not disregarded anything.

They are valid points, and I've shot them to pieces as irrelevant to the Hanratty case.

Please do keep up the good work! It's only by investigating every possibility that the immensely strong case against Hanratty gets even stronger!

[JamesDean]

No, no, no, no, no!
It came from a contamination event and not from a sexual assault.

Yes ... and Hanratty's came from a contamination event!

Furthermore, there's the further evidence (MG's semen) leading to the conclusion that there was "a pattern which is wholly consistent with sexual intercourse having taken place in which Valerie Storie and James Hanratty were the participants". There's no statement like that in the case you quoted.

How does the presence of MG's semen prove that Hanratty had sex with VS? It's a presumption that he had sex with her because his DNA 'seemed' to be present too. Contamination was never ruled out simply deemed unlikely. I think the logic used to arrive at that conclusion is flawed because it took into account the liklihood of similar contamination on the handkerchief and the handkerchief was never contaminated because it belonged to James Hanratty and was left on the bus with the gun to frame him.

The cases don't have to be identical other than they both used DNA analysis to confirm guilt. It's not the specifics of a particular case that is important. The message is that LCN analysis is unreliable and can produce spurious results even if it is the analysis that is spurious. It's the analysis (conclusion) that has to be right and the slightest conatamination can illicit a wrong conclusion. The conclusion would have been wrong in the case I have cited had there not been a second sample to test. There was no second sample in the Hanratty case so no chance to verify the rather stark conclusion that was delivered.

Last week I made my feelings clear... Hanratty did it. He should not have been convicted or hung on the evidence available at the original trial.

I have not disregarded anything.

They are valid points, and I've shot them to pieces as irrelevant to the Hanratty case.

Please do keep up the good work! It's only by investigating every possibility that the immensely strong case against Hanratty gets even stronger!

So, in your view, the following extract from post #1953 enhances the reputation of LCN analysis?

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.

Bearing in mind that the Hanratty DNA test was carried out in 1997 and there is still controversy over the use of this technique, I'm filled with confidence (not) that the result of the Hanratty DNA test was infallible and reached the correct conclusion.

Regards
James

[JIMBOW]

Hello Jim

I am sorry to say no I don't have a photograph of the dairy, and I don't know where it was. If anyone can tell me I'll take the camera along and photograph whatever is there now.

Kind regards,
Steve

Steve, apparently it's in Burnham (there's even a map included in this rather lengthy link!).

http://maps.yell.com/client/yell/?&nat_id=3801441&businessType=PROPERTY+MANAGEMENT&qs=SL1+7JZ&sl=false&storePC=SL1+7JZ&ssm=0&companyName=Neville+%26+Griffin+Ltd&clarifyIndex=&clarifyOptions=&replayURL=%2Fucs%2FUcsSearchAction.do%3Fkeywords%3DProperty%2BManagement%26ssm%3D1%26searchType%3Drelatedlocation%26location%3DSouth%2BBucks%2BD%2BC%26potential%3D10%26scrambleSeed%3D1170627994

Hey, no big deal ... just if you happened to be passing by! Cheeky, aren't I?

Jim

[jimarilyn]

Last week I made my feelings clear... Hanratty did it. He should not have been convicted or hung on the evidence available at the original trial.

The highlighted point above is just plain wrong.

I have not disregarded anything.

They are valid points, and I've shot them to pieces as irrelevant to the Hanratty case.

Please do keep up the good work! It's only by investigating every possibility that the immensely strong case against Hanratty gets even stronger!

I see that you have altered my original post. My post did not highlight that particular phrasing.


PS. You most definitely haven't shot JamesDean's very valid points to pieces.

[Steve]

Neville & Griffin

Steve, apparently it's in Burnham (there's even a map included in this rather lengthy link!).

http://maps.yell.com/client/yell/?&nat_id=3801441&businessType=PROPERTY+MANAGEMENT&qs=SL1+7JZ&sl=false&storePC=SL1+7JZ&ssm=0&companyName=Neville+%26+Griffin+Ltd&clarifyIndex=&clarifyOptions=&replayURL=%2Fucs%2FUcsSearchAction.do%3Fkeywords%3DProperty%2BManagement%26ssm%3D1%26searchType%3Drelatedlocation%26location%3DSouth%2BBucks%2BD%2BC%26potential%3D10%26scrambleSeed%3D1170627994

Hey, no big deal ... just if you happened to be passing by! Cheeky, aren't I?

Jim

Evening Cheeky Jim

I think this might be a different business because they are listed on yell under property management. If it's the same business as the N & G in 1961 they have diversified somewhat.

In either case, that address is not one that the Morris Minor would have passed on its journey from Dorney towards London.

Unfortunately then we are no further forward on locating where the Neville & Griffin dairy was. Anyone else have any ideas?

Kind regards,
Steve

[JIMBOW]

Evening Cheeky Jim

I think this might be a different business because they are listed on yell under property management. If it's the same business as the N & G in 1961 they have diversified somewhat.

In either case, that address is not one that the Morris Minor would have passed on its journey from Dorney towards London.

Unfortunately then we are no further forward on locating where the Neville & Griffin dairy was. Anyone else have any ideas?

Kind regards,
Steve

Ah-ha .... I see. Well, perhaps, as you say, someone will be able to come up with a few pointers/ideas. As I say, I find the photos of these various places of interest to be somehow fascinating but, then again, people always thought I was ... strange!

Jim

[Steve]

Hi Jim

I don't see why people think you are strange!

By the way, you are the guy who lives in Canada and goes to Blackpool on holiday, right?

Nothing strange about that! Is there?

Kind regards,
Steve

[jimarilyn]

Hansard transcript of debate in Commons 2nd of August 1963

Hi,

Came across the following link while googling "Mentals only hope". It's a complete trancript of the above mentioned Commons debate. I've only read bits and pieces of this before. It's very interesting.

http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1963/aug/02/james-hanratty-trial

[Victor]

Yes ... and Hanratty's came from a contamination event!

OK, if that is your view, what contamination event? (Remembering that the brown paper envelope that the sample was inside shows no signs of water damage so the broken vial (whatever it contained) didn't even touch that - let alone the knicker fragment sealed inside it in cellophane)

How does the presence of MG's semen prove that Hanratty had sex with VS? It's a presumption that he had sex with her because his DNA 'seemed' to be present too.

MG's semen can only have got onto the knickers before the rape.
It was detected on the knicker fragment in small quantities.
Any contamination event would have to remove all of "the rapists" DNA, but leave behind MG (and VS) which is theoretically possible but with negligible probability.

Contamination was never ruled out simply deemed unlikely.

No it was ruled out (see above)

I think the logic used to arrive at that conclusion is flawed because it took into account the liklihood of similar contamination on the handkerchief and the handkerchief was never contaminated because it belonged to James Hanratty and was left on the bus with the gun to frame him.

No it didn't. This quote "In our view the notion that such a thing might have happened in either case is fanciful. The idea that it might have happened twice over is beyond belief." proves that.

I'm happy to accept that the hanky could have been used to give police a big push in his direction, although you can't use the word "frame" because that would imply that he was innocent.

The cases don't have to be identical other than they both used DNA analysis to confirm guilt.

Wrong! The O'Donohue case used DNA analysis to prove he was innocent of sexual assault.

It's not the specifics of a particular case that is important. The message is that LCN analysis is unreliable and can produce spurious results even if it is the analysis that is spurious.

Nope - the message is that the technique needs further refinement.

It's the analysis (conclusion) that has to be right and the slightest conatamination can illicit a wrong conclusion.

The analysis does have to be right, but that's true for any investigative technique. It's why so many Sherlock Holmes-type books have been written and are so popular - the police misinterpret the evidence and frame the wrong man, and along comes Sherlock Holmes/Miss Marple/Angela Lansbury/Kojak and says "No the evidence doesn't mean that, it means this!"

The conclusion would have been wrong in the case I have cited had there not been a second sample to test. There was no second sample in the Hanratty case so no chance to verify the rather stark conclusion that was delivered.

Twisted logic. The word "would" in the first sentence is wrong "could" or "may". You cannot prove that, so it's just pure speculation.

So, in your view, the following extract from post #1953 enhances the reputation of LCN analysis?

Let's see "and is capable of producing misleading or spurious results" - what technique isn't?
"unless the method is refined to ensure higher reliability" - it's still being developed fully. It doesn't say it's always wrong.
"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" - Duh!
"it is important to standardise the method. It can sometimes produce spurious results, so they decided not to use it"
"you start to see things that might not be relevant to the evidence"

Typical over-precautious approach. If you are aware that the method isn't perfect you take care when interpretting ambiguous results - or find a reason for the discrepancies - like the proved contamination event in your case.

There's room for a contamination event in the Hanratty case and it was looked for, hence the comments about the envelope not being water stained, and dismissed as highly unlikely.

Bearing in mind that the Hanratty DNA test was carried out in 1997 and there is still controversy over the use of this technique, I'm filled with confidence (not) that the result of the Hanratty DNA test was infallible and reached the correct conclusion.

Regards
James

Your still trying to turn "War and Peace" into "Lord of the Rings" with nothing more than a photocopier. The LCN technique can give odd results, it's not perfect, it needs refining, it needs more investigation and development but when it tells you that's Hanratty's (or O'Donohue) semen, it is, now how did it get there? O'Donohue by a proved contamination event - the body was on the bathroom mat - Hanratty's because he raped VS.

I'm convinced the Hanratty test proved that the right man was hung, and so were the Appeal Court Judges, and so was VS and she has been for over 40 years.

[Victor]

I see that you have altered my original post. My post did not highlight that particular phrasing.


PS. You most definitely haven't shot JamesDean's very valid points to pieces.

No I didn't alter the post, I highlighted a phrase to specifically comment on it just like virtually every author does in every book when quoting a passage and commenting on one part of it.

ps Why not? which part haven't I countered? What bit do I need to explain further?

[JamesDean]

Hello Victor

You have misinterpreted some of the things that I have said and tried to twist them into meaning something different. I don't propose to go any further with this argument as I have neither the time or the inclination and I think that turning the thread into a personal battle field does not achieve anything. You will always quote from the holy text that is the judgment, as does johnl, and I merely seek to examine the case for alternative explanations for the events of that night. The judgment is well presented but in my opinion flawed. You have your opinion about the DNA 'evidence' and I have mine so let's just leave it at that.

Regards
James

[JamesDean]

Hi,

Came across the following link while googling "Mentals only hope". It's a complete trancript of the above mentioned Commons debate. I've only read bits and pieces of this before. It's very interesting.



http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/c...hanratty-trial

Excellent link jimarilyn. I haven't seen that before.

I wonder who Mr X is?

Regards
James