a6 murder

[Victor]

Yes I was again demonstrating the opportunity or possibility of contamination. Can you, without reference to the judgement say with hand on heart that contamination didn't occur...or are you just taking what the appeal court says as being gospel. Would you stick you head in a gas oven and turn it on on their say so? Honest answer please!

The judgment is the only source for the DNA results in this case, and without referring to the results then what you ask is impossible.

If you take the results only - only JH's DNA on the hanky and only where there was mucous - then that is absolute definitive proof of no contamination on the hanky. This establishes the validity of the LCN technique for detecting profiles from samples of the appropriate age.

The knicker fragment results are more complex, but from your links, if they used the semen seperation technique (and there is no evidence that they did not and evidence, which of course comes from the judgment, that they did) and managed to get 3 profiles - JH, MG and VS (admittedly MG profile is attributed) then the lack of other profiles, especially a "rapist" profile, in addition to JH leads to the inevitable conclusion that JH was the rapist. There is no other logical explanation for the results obtained. If you can provide one then I'm happy to listen.

As for the DNA evidence standing alone is certain proof of James Hanratty's guilt. This cannot be true because DNA analysis (although not LCN which cannot even exclude) can only truly exclude anyone from a profile. DNA profiling is like any evidential tool, a piece of a much larger picture.

Absolutely incorrect. Please can you tell me how the profile obtained using LCN differs from a profile using SGM+. The results are in an identical format, they use the same STRs, detected in the same way. The only difference between the techniques is the number of replication cycles.

Also where was it ever stated that Mrs Grace Jones was evading UK taxation via non-disclosure of her true and correct income from self-employment as you have mentioned quite a lot on here?

She admits it in her evidence. Read her statements - she tells the court that she allows people to sleep in the bathroom and doesn't declare the income.

I have not found out anything about her being accused of, charged with or done for tax evasion! If you could supply your sources I would be most appreciative.

As far as I am aware she was never charged or even investigated for it - you'll have to ask the tax office whether they did or not.

Admitting it in the witness box is evidence enough for most, just because she was never charged doesn't mean she didn't commit the crime.

KR,
Vic.

[Victor]

But some of do not believe that it does exist! If you read back in this thread Viv, and esp if you read up about DNA techniques on the DNA thread, you will see that the *only* DNA "evidence" linking Hanratty to the (now destroyed) infinitessimily small DNA samples used in the 2002 appeal was obtained by the 'Low Copy Number' technique

And lots of us believe that the results are conclusive proof.

This has been totally discredited in the eyes of many foresnic scientists and is therefore NOT accepted as evidence in the vast majory of national jurisdictions. In fact there are only two countries which do accpet it - one of which is the UK

Wrong. UK, Netherlands and New Zealand accept the technique.

This has been constantly pointed out in this thread by several of us, but some posters persist in ignoring this inconvenient fact and speak as if the DNA "evidence" was obtained by the usual accepted techniques. It wasn't.

I've never ignored the fact that this technique is legally accepted in the country where the crime occurred, and is therefore absolutely admissible in court.

They also continue to ignore the fact that there was - and there remains - a very real possibility that the fragment samples were contaminated in some way - some of us have expounded on this a few weeks ago.

I completely accept that there were opportunities for contamination to occur, but the results show that those opportunities were unsuccessful in contaminating the samples.

I have never heard a valid explanation for the results obtained which does not conclude that Hanratty was the rapist.

We simply cannot, if we have open minds, assume that the full rigour of current practice in the handling of samples was current in the early 60s - even if a naive judge did come to that conclusion.

Indeed, noone can exclude that there were opportunities for contamination to occur, but that is to ignore the results.

My own reading of the judgement is that he did not understand the hazards of the LCN technique; which in fairness almost no-one did then.

He didn't need to, he had experts advising him.

We should be a little wiser now.

We are. The results are conclusive. James Hanratty raped Valerie Storie and ejaculated leaving some of his semen on her knickers. Please provide an alternative explanation of the results if you disagree.

KR,
Vic.

[Victor]

I have read every post on both threads and got rather lost in the science but have not found (or remembered) an answer as to why no other DNA was found from anyone other than VS, MG and JH.

Easy. No other DNA was detected because the opportunities for cells from other people to land on the samples and remain there were either too brief or not enough material transferred for it to be detected.

I recall Vic's analogy of the hundreds and thousands and it seems very odd that Hanratty's DNA should completely cover other traces of DNA except Valerie's (can't recall if MG's DNA was identified on that sample). I know there is some argument too about the size of fragment taken as a sample.

What argument about the sample size? LCN had to be used because there was not enough DNA to give results via SGM+.

At the moment I cannot decide whether to believe in the results or not. But, prior to accessing this thread, I would have had no reason to doubt the DNA 'findings' at all. I very much welcome being further enlightened in all aspects of this case either way. I know the Police suspended use of the LCN testing - as an interim measure to consider implications of the Omagh case but this was over year ago. Is the suspension still in place does anyone know?

Reg has given links for this - LCN is "fit for purpose" and IIRC a "robust technique" - it is now being used again.

Given the increasing doubts about the LCN technique I wonder why there appears to have been little or no obvious follow up by the Hanratty family in the last few years.

I have not heard that the doubts are incresing, where did you get that from?

KR,
Vic.

[Graham]

Regarding Mrs Grace Jones, whatever her reasons were for appearing as a witness for the defence, Swanwick exposed her lack of correct records-keeping. As she was self-employed, the visitors' book was her only true record of who her paying guests were and how much they paid, and would have been required by the Inland Revenue if a tax-audit was indicated. Technically, she would also have been obliged to issue receipts to her guests. If she was taking in paying guests and not maintaining a true and correct record of their payment, then this would be viewed by the Inland Revenue as possible tax evasion and liable to penalties. There is no reason why, if the Inland Revenue went so far as to prosecute her, such a move by them would ever be made public. This is not to label the good Mrs J as a criminal - she wasn't. I was self-employed myself for a long time, and I'm aware of the pitfalls and the temptations....

My own Margate-based relation ran up a substantial tax-bill not because he didn't keep a properly-maintained visitors' book, but because he simply didn't pay the Inland Revenue what he owed them! I can't remember the full details, but it went on for years before they finally nabbed him. He also failed to maintain his property per whatever Act regulates safety in guest-houses, and he was eventually brought to book over that, too.

It's said that the workings of the Inland Revenue are like the mills of God - they grind exceeding slow but exceeding fine.

These days it's Customs & Excise that small businesses and self-employed people need to be wary of - they strike hard and fast.

Cheers,

Graham

[jimarilyn]

Was the mystery suspect Alphon ?

Hi All,

Bob Woffinden on page 53 of his book mentions a newspaper article which appeared in the first edition of the Evening News on September 7th 1961.

The headline of that article read "A6: MAN HELPS THE YARD.
He is Questioned for Hours by the Murder Team. "
This article was not mentioned at all in Paul Foot's book published 26 years earlier.

For those posters who may not have Woffinden's book to hand I will quote from the 3rd and 4th paragraphs of that page :-

"According to the story, a man had walked into Cannon Row police station and was 'still helping detectives with their inquiries'. The man went into the police station in Whitehall at 10.00pm on Wednesday, and was still there at 2.00pm the following day - sixteen hours later, so the whole matter must have been taken seriously. Bob Acott, together with Detective Superintendent Charles Barron and Detective Sergeant Harry Heavens, had driven down from Bedford - still in the green Jaguar - to question him.

Although the London evening papers, which were always on sale from mid-morning, were creating the impression that it was all over, nothing more was heard of this subject."
"

The identity of this man is not revealed. Bob Woffinden doesn't say who it is. Could it have been Peter Alphon (who had already been interviewed on August 27th by Det-Sgt Arthur Kilner and Det-Constable Anthony Dean) or was it someone completely different ? I'd often wondered about this.

Re-reading parts of the Court of Appeal judgment of 2002 I came across something I'd obviously overlooked on my previous two readings, namely that Alphon had been interviewed also on September 7th ( see paragraph 37 ). When was this information revealed ? Does anyone know ?

The man mentioned in the Evening News article must have been Peter Alphon. This means that Alphon was held for questioning on 3 separate occasions, August 27th, September 7th and September 23rd.

From August 31st apparently, the murder suspect was described as now having icy blue eyes. The police knew Alphon's eyes were hazel so why did they question him for 16 hours, a week later, and why did they take the unprecedented step on September 22nd of actually naming him ?

William Nudds's first statement to the police (implicating Hanratty more than Alphon) was taken on September 15th, 4 days after the cartridge cases were found. His second statement, very detailed, and strongly implicating Alphon was taken on September 21st and bore no resemblance to the first. The police must have been so impressed with Nudds's second statement that they sought to bring in Alphon for a 3rd time in less than 4 weeks. They could not have been too impressed with Valerie Storie's revised description of the colour of her attacker's eyes which had mysteriously changed from brown to icy blue.

Just what was going on here ??


regards,
James

[Victor]

They could not have been too impressed with Valerie Storie's revised description of the colour of her attacker's eyes which had mysteriously changed from brown to icy blue.

Hi James,

When does VS ever say that her attacker's eyes were brown?

Woffinden says something about the press garbling her account in which she mentions someone called "Brown" and brown hair, but never brown eyes.

KR,
Vic.

[jimarilyn]

Hi James,

When does VS ever say that her attacker's eyes were brown?

Woffinden says something about the press garbling her account in which she mentions someone called "Brown" and brown hair, but never brown eyes.

KR,
Vic.

Hi Victor,

Inspector Morgan of Biggleswade was interviewed the day of the murder by TV reporters. In this filmed interview he stated ( amongst other things ) that the murderer's eyes were brown. There could only have been one source for this information.

Miss Storie herself confirmed this on Saturday, August 26th, when she helped to compile the identikit photo of her attacker, depicting his eyes as being of a dark colour (not pale or icy blue).


regards,
James

[jimarilyn]

Just passing through, but here are a couple of points:

Hi Graham,

Hate to nitpick here but you mention three. You haven't been on the sauce again by any chance ? Hope it doesn't addle the brain cells too much.

regards,
James

[Victor]

Hi Victor,

Inspector Morgan of Biggleswade was interviewed the day of the murder by TV reporters. In this filmed interview he stated ( amongst other things ) that the murderer's eyes were brown. There could only have been one source for this information.

Miss Storie herself confirmed this on Saturday, August 26th, when she helped to compile the identikit photo of her attacker, depicting his eyes as being of a dark colour (not pale or icy blue).

regards,
James

Hi James,

Well your first paragraph contains a massive assumption and no proof that the inspector didn't make the same error as the press nor does it preclude the possibility that Morgan's erroneous statement was the source for the press mistake; and the second refers to a black&white identikit.

So still no record of VS saying catagorically that her attackers eyes were anything other than blue.

KR,
Vic.

[Victor]

Hi Graham,

Hate to nitpick here but you mention three. You haven't been on the sauce again by any chance ? Hope it doesn't addle the brain cells too much.

regards,
James

Hi James,

From http://www.thefreedictionary.com/couple

cou·ple (kpl)
n.
1. Two items of the same kind; a pair.
2. Something that joins or connects two things together; a link.
3. (used with a sing. or pl. verb)
a. Two people united, as by betrothal or marriage.
b. Two people together.
4. Informal A few; several: a couple of days.
5. Physics A pair of forces of equal magnitude acting in parallel but opposite directions, capable of causing rotation but not translation.

KR,
Vic.

[Graham]

Hi Graham,

Hate to nitpick here but you mention three. You haven't been on the sauce again by any chance ? Hope it doesn't addle the brain cells too much.

regards,
James

Well, if my brain is addled, then it's in very good company with more than a few posters to this thread, including ones who probably don't touch a drop, either.

Graham

[Graham]

Inspector Morgan of Biggleswade was interviewed the day of the murder by TV reporters. In this filmed interview he stated ( amongst other things ) that the murderer's eyes were brown. There could only have been one source for this information.

Yes, and if you've seen the newsreel, you'll have noticed Supt Morgan's long hesitation before uttering the word 'brown eyes', then he goes on to say 'deep-set - er, not very deep set'. So was he reading a statement written by some colleague of his, or what?

And according to John Kerr, Valerie said that he attacker had 'big, staring eyes' without mentioning their colour at all.

And the statement released by the police after Valerie was interviewed by Gwen Woodin again made no reference to colour, only that the eyes were 'big'.

And after meeting Valerie in hospital Janet Gregsten said that 'the most important feature was his [the attacker's] eyes. They were blue and staring'.

Not a lot of evidence to point to the A6 killer having brown eyes....is there?

Cheers,

Graham

Cheers,

Graham

[Tony]

Yes, and if you've seen the newsreel, you'll have noticed Supt Morgan's long hesitation before uttering the word 'brown eyes', then he goes on to say 'deep-set - er, not very deep set'. So was he reading a statement written by some colleague of his, or what?

And according to John Kerr, Valerie said that he attacker had 'big, staring eyes' without mentioning their colour at all.

And the statement released by the police after Valerie was interviewed by Gwen Woodin again made no reference to colour, only that the eyes were 'big'.

And after meeting Valerie in hospital Janet Gregsten said that 'the most important feature was his [the attacker's] eyes. They were blue and staring'.

Not a lot of evidence to point to the A6 killer having brown eyes....is there?

Cheers,

Graham

Cheers,

Graham

Hello Graham,

I quote you from your post 3267:

“Not a lot of evidence to point to the A6 killer having brown eyes....is there?”

The first identikit picture compiled solely by Valerie and which looked remarkably like Mr Alphon, despite your own doubts about this was compiled and aided by the identikit expert.

As Vic says it was in black and white, I think they still may be nowadays, but the ‘coach’ would have explained to her the procedure. She had not done one before.

As you know there are different types of hair, noses, lips ears and such like. But colour is a feature even though it is in black and white; such as for the colour of the hair

Similarly eye colours can be selected and the ‘coach’ has to explain exactly what colour codings are referred to with the hair, lips and eyes.

There are 104 codings for eyes. E10 illustrates blue eyes. Valerie chose E49 which depicts dark eyes.

Dark eyes are not blue eyes by any stretch of the imagination.

Can you let me know how Valerie, very shortly after the murder when her memory was freshest, chose E49 eyes to be published to help in the search for the killer?

She simply must have told the expert coach the man had dark or brown eyes and not blue.


Tony.

[jimarilyn]

Well, if my brain is addled, then it's in very good company with more than a few posters to this thread, including ones who probably don't touch a drop, either.

Graham

Hi Graham,

My post was a light hearted one and said in jest. It's a pity you took it the wrong way and not in the spirit it was meant. Seems like your sense of humour has deserted you.


regards,
James

[jimarilyn]

Hello Graham,

I quote you from your post 3267:

“Not a lot of evidence to point to the A6 killer having brown eyes....is there?”

The first identikit picture compiled solely by Valerie and which looked remarkably like Mr Alphon, despite your own doubts about this was compiled and aided by the identikit expert.

As Vic says it was in black and white, I think they still may be nowadays, but the ‘coach’ would have explained to her the procedure. She had not done one before.

As you know there are different types of hair, noses, lips ears and such like. But colour is a feature even though it is in black and white; such as for the colour of the hair

Similarly eye colours can be selected and the ‘coach’ has to explain exactly what colour codings are referred to with the hair, lips and eyes.

There are 104 codings for eyes. E10 illustrates blue eyes. Valerie chose E49 which depicts dark eyes.

Dark eyes are not blue eyes by any stretch of the imagination.

Can you let me know how Valerie, very shortly after the murder when her memory was freshest, chose E49 eyes to be published to help in the search for the killer?

She simply must have told the expert coach the man had dark or brown eyes and not blue.


Tony.

Excellently put Tony. You say it all.


regards,
James