a6 murder

[JamesDean]

The technique came under attack from the Judge during the trail of Sean Hoey - who was eventually cleared of involvement in the Omagh Bombing. One of the criticisms the judge leveled at LCN was that although the FSS had internally validated and published scientific papers on the technique, there was an alleged lack of external validation by the wider scientific community. Following the Judge's ruling, the use of the technique was suspended in the UK, pending a review by the Crown Prosecution Service. This review was completed and the suspension lifted on the 14 January 2008. In its press release the CPS stated:-

"From this, the CPS has not seen anything to suggest that any current problems exist with LCN. Accordingly we conclude that LCN DNA analysis provided by the FSS should remain available as potentially admissible evidence. Of course, the strength and weight such evidence is given in any individual case remains a matter to be considered, presented, and tested in the light of all the other evidence." [my bold!]

Hello Victor

Would you expect the CPS to say anything else? Like you, they think it's infallible. The report that came out of the review did not say the words you have quoted. I have the full review and this is the executive summary:-

A Review of the Science of Low Template DNA Analysis
Executive Summary

From our detailed review we find that the science supporting the delivery of
Low Template DNA (LTDNA) analysis is sound and that the three companies
(the Forensic Science Service Ltd, LGC Forensics and Orchid Cellmark Ltd)
providing this service to the Criminal Justice System have validated their
processes in accord with accepted scientific principles using both 28 and 34
PCR cycles for extracts containing less than 200 picograms (pg) of DNA. At
these levels, stochastic and inhibition effects have an impact upon the DNA
profiles produced and all those involved in this process have established
guidelines for profile interpretation. Work on interpretation is continuing and it
is for the Forensic Science Regulator to monitor this and to bring about some
standardisation in interpretation amongst all providers.

Now that suitable commercial analytical systems are available for the
quantification of low levels of DNA, it becomes important that all DNA samples
submitted for analysis under the Criminal Justice System must, as a matter of
best practice, be quantified before attempts are made to produce DNA
profiles.

Training both laboratory personnel and those involved in the recovery of DNA
samples from crime scenes requires to be standardised. It is for the Forensic
Science Regulator through a dialogue with all providers and ACPO to
establish what those standards should be, to implement them and to monitor
their application.

The use of DNA-free consumables both in the laboratory and for those
working at the crime scene is essential. Standards for these need to be set
and quality control mechanisms put in place to monitor the status of these
materials/chemicals.

Although used for a number of years we do not yet have any reliable measure
of the success rate of LTDNA analysis and this need to be corrected.
We have been made aware that there is concern by the forensic science
providers of the role of Police Laboratories established by the larger police
forces. This concern relates to the quality of work and their future role in the
provision of forensic science services. Additionally they have expressed
concern over the funding of forensic science. It is for the Forensic Science
Regulator to enter into a dialogue with ACPO to allay these concerns and /or
to develop mechanisms that can overcome any envisaged problems.
We have become aware that there is a desperate need for independent
research funding in order to advance the discipline of forensic science. Such
funding should be open to all on a competitive basis in the same way as the
government funded research councils, who are at present unable or unwilling
to finance any developments in this arena.

Finally, we believe that it is important for the Forensic Science Regulator to
monitor all documentation associated with accreditation and validation.

APRIL 2008 B. Caddy
G. R. Taylor
A.M.T. Linacre

I could highlight words and phrases in the executive summary or from the main body of the report, as you are prone to do, and take them out of context to prove whatever point I wanted to make. There is a lot more in the main body of the report, the executive summary simply giving an overview of the main findings.

You will no doubt see only positives and nothing that is critical of the overall process. In fact I hazard a guess that you will say I have just proven your point! That will say more about you than it does about me or LCN.

James

[jimarilyn]

Nope it's not only people, evidence can be interrogated.

From http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/interrogate
1 : to question formally and systematically
2 : to give or send out a signal to (as a transponder) for triggering an appropriate response

That'd be the first definition then.

Hi Victor,

Fabulous. I'm in silly mode at the moment and I was just wondering when this evidence was being interrogated if it was able to respond and did it have an intimidating swinging light bulb overhead.

[JIMBOW]

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

Ha Ha! Ee, ba gum, lad!! Tha's never been to Blackpool? Tha's never lived!

Well, I do go to New Zealand too. That exotic enough for ya??

Regards,
Jim

[jimarilyn]

The police know how their suspects speak and would know if anyone tried to disguise their voice. Trying to disguise your voice is virtually an admission of guilt!

Hi Steve,

According to Valerie Storie, the murderer wore a triangular shaped handkerchief tied over his mouth and nose. I have just conducted a small scientific experiment and tied a similar piece of material over my mouth and nose. I then phoned a friend, who was out , so I left a voicemail. On playing back this voicemail there was a definite change in voice intonation and I could hardly recognise my own voice. It was muffled for obvious reasons and not a true reflection of my normal voice.
.

[Tony]

Hi Steve,

According to Valerie Storie, the murderer wore a triangular shaped handkerchief tied over his mouth and nose. I have just conducted a small scientific experiment and tied a similar piece of material over my mouth and nose. I then phoned a friend, who was out , so I left a voicemail. On playing back this voicemail there was a definite change in voice intonation and I could hardly recognise my own voice. It was muffled for obvious reasons and not a true reflection of my normal voice.
.

A very good evening to you Jimarilyn,

Some good points as always but I would advise you to keep away from the DNA stuff. Who knows what’s right and what’s wrong? There are several apparent experts on here who have all the same evidence but come up with opposite views. So I think it advisable for, certainly the likes of me, and possibly others to keep out of it and stick to what we know best. That is the history of this case and the players involved. Certain contributors are making less and less contributions over the past couple of weeks and we can only guess why.
With regards to the identification parades can any of the ‘Hanratty did it’ faction really say hand on heart it was carried out fairly. Because I certainly wouldn’t have liked to have evidence given against me on what happened on those line-ups.
And like someone said recently VS was threatened and intimidated by a phone caller whilst in hospital. Now I wonder if there was anyone around at that time that used the phone regularly to threaten people. And I also wonder if the men on the first line up were asked to speak if VS would have recognised a phone menace. Remind me who was on that first parade please who could possibly fit the bill as a phone pest. Probably no one we will be told.

Tony.

[Steve]

Ha Ha! Ee, ba gum, lad!! Tha's never been to Blackpool? Tha's never lived!

Well, I do go to New Zealand too. That exotic enough for ya??

Regards,
Jim

Hi Jim

They don't speak like that in Blackpool, it's on the other side of the Pennines in Yorkshire where 'ba gum' is used. (Or was used in times gone by.)

Yes, I have been to Blackpool on many, many occasions, including the time when I photographed the Stevonia. I've written here before that I have a spot for the area, especially up the coast in Fleetwood.

Kind regards,

[Steve]

According to Valerie Storie, the murderer wore a triangular shaped handkerchief tied over his mouth and nose. I have just conducted a small scientific experiment and tied a similar piece of material over my mouth and nose. I then phoned a friend, who was out , so I left a voicemail. On playing back this voicemail there was a definite change in voice intonation and I could hardly recognise my own voice. It was muffled for obvious reasons and not a true reflection of my normal voice.
.

Jimarilyn

You are kidding?

Kind regards,
Steve

[reg1965]

A very good evening to you Jimarilyn,

Some good points as always but I would advise you to keep away from the DNA stuff. Who knows what’s right and what’s wrong? There are several apparent experts on here who have all the same evidence but come up with opposite views. So I think it advisable for, certainly the likes of me, and possibly others to keep out of it and stick to what we know best. That is the history of this case and the players involved. Certain contributors are making less and less contributions over the past couple of weeks and we can only guess why.
With regards to the identification parades can any of the ‘Hanratty did it’ faction really say hand on heart it was carried out fairly. Because I certainly wouldn’t have liked to have evidence given against me on what happened on those line-ups.
And like someone said recently VS was threatened and intimidated by a phone caller whilst in hospital. Now I wonder if there was anyone around at that time that used the phone regularly to threaten people. And I also wonder if the men on the first line up were asked to speak if VS would have recognised a phone menace. Remind me who was on that first parade please who could possibly fit the bill as a phone pest. Probably no one we will be told.

Tony.

Hi Tony
I haven't read all of the post on this thread yet! But I do remember the subject of DNA coming up once or twice.

But my point is that the recent slanging match seems to have brgun when I first started banging on about it. I personally sincerely apologise to any one who has been really p***ed off about it. It has to say the least completely polarised opinion here.

That is not surprising for obvious reasons. There are camps of guilty and innocent and among those are people who have been swayed one way (or possibly the other) by the DNA.

You all know where I stand on it.

I agree it is getting us nowhere. None of us who have posted is a bona fide forensic DNA expert and as JamesDean initimated we should just leave it there.

I have no truck per se also with the Appeal Courts ruling document insomuch as that I don't agree with its findings.

If the Rhyl alibi as a whole can be shown to be a compelling, irresistable one then it provides an avenue for the innocence of Hanratty as the murderer but obviously not as the petty crook he was. Even this country stopped hanging petty crooks a long time ago (quiz question there for someone, I'd be interested to know when that stopped!)

I would like to make a final point. I believe that the original charges against Hanratty at the Ampthill hearing was murder of MG and the rape and attempted murder of VS. The latter two were dropped for the trial at Bedford Assizes. Is this correct?

Kind regards
Reg

[Steve]

I would like to make a final point. I believe that the original charges against Hanratty at the Ampthill hearing was murder of MG and the rape and attempted murder of VS. The latter two were dropped for the trial at Bedford Assizes. Is this correct?

James Hanratty stood trial for his life in Bedford for the murder of Michael Gregsten! The other charges were kept in reserve in case he was not found guilty.

[Graham]

Hi all!

I've been away off and on for a few days, but when I decided to catch up on what was happening in A6 Land I was almost overwhelmed by the sheer number and weight of the posts debating the DNA. No bad thing, and to be encouraged (obviously), but so far no-one has come up with anything to change my mind that the DNA is correct and Hanratty done it. A fair bit of hair-splitting has been going on, as well as (I have to be honest) straw-clutching. I have to say that what I know about DNA testing (as opposed to the basic concept of DNA) and a halfpenny wouldn't buy me a penny chew, but nevertheless I remain 99.9% confident that the DNA analysis is reliable. I say 99.9%, because as a former analytical chemist I am well aware that it's rare for any organic analysis to be 100% reliable - but from what I know about DNA, statistically it's reliable. Maybe it's a question of my old-fashioned faith in the outmoded concept that by and large forensic science is a pretty precise discipline.

Not so long ago I read a fairly new book about John Cannan, the guy who was banged up for life for the murder of Shirley Banks, and who has been linked with the (assumed) murder of Suzi Lamplugh. To this day, Cannan denies any and all knowledge of the murder of Shirley Banks, proclaims his innocence at every opportunity, and (naturally) refuses to discuss the Lamplugh Case. To an extent, he reminds me of JH. (He also comes from the same town where I live, to add a bit of personal spice to the matter). Cannan to my mind is something of a latter-day JH, a man from a close family background who, for whatever reason, went wrong. He professes his absolute normality and his innocence, when the forensics prove beyond a shadow of doubt that he killed Shirley Banks, and the known facts of his life portray him as anything but normal and innocent. His is almost the ultimate in denial - he is intelligent enough to appreciate and understand the weight of the evidence against him, but he absolutely refuses to confess or admit to anything. Well, I probably would, too.

The absolute bald fact of the A6 Case is that JH, rightly or wrongly, was convicted by identification and, almost equally, by his inability to prove his alibi. The jury accepted the prosecution evidence. We can argue until the cows come home about this (and I hope we do, because this is the basis of this thread), but although I think we all agree that the jury at the time were wrong, the overwhelming evidence of the DNA shows that they were right.
Further, I believe that had Alphon been brought to trial, the Crown's case would have been much weaker, because he did have a proveable alibi, shaky though it might have been - yet it was stronger than Hanratty's.

Anyway, keep it going, lads! It gets better and better!

Cheers,

Graham

[Steve]

Hi Graham

You are not by any chance a sports referee in your spare time? That last post summed up both sides of the debate in a nutshell!

Kind regards,
Steve

[reg1965]

Hi Vic

My final point on the subject of DNA.

If you want to read a report by real forensic DNA experts then have a look at the Forensic Institutes press release following the review by the Forensic Regulator (instituted after the Hoey appeal).

http://www.theforensicinstitute.com/public_html/PressLCN.htm

Regards
Reg

[Graham]

Hi Steve,

Yeah, boxing, John. 'Kay? With me?

Graham

[JamesDean]

Hi Vic

My final point on the subject of DNA.

If you want to read a report by real forensic DNA experts then have a look at the Forensic Institutes press release following the review by the Forensic Regulator (instituted after the Hoey appeal).

http://www.theforensicinstitute.com/public_html/PressLCN.htm

Regards
Reg

Hi Reg

The review was instigated by the CPS and I would think that there is an element of whitewash in it. Let's face it, the CPS would never want any doubt to be cast on the scientific principles.

Regards
James

[Steve]

Hi Steve,

Yeah, boxing, John. 'Kay? With me?

Graham

Where's Harry?