a6 murder

[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

Not at all, dear chap, but I don't like being labelled a piss-head even in jest.

Graham

[Graham]

Tony,

The Identikit procedure was far from being perfect. In fact, it was downright inaccurate and soon fell out of favour. Even today's E-Kit technique (or whatever it's called) isn't considered particularly accurate, let alone infallible. My own perception is that Valerie quite simply contradicted herself, and I remind you of her own statement, viz, "my memory of this man is fading fast".

Also, to quote Paul Foot, "Alphon looked uncannily like the Identikit picture drawn up by Valerie Storie. His hair was slicked back with grease. His eyes were deep-set and staring (though neither icy-blue nor saucer-like nor brown. [I]Apart from the colour of his eyes[I] he fitted Valerie's original description given at Bedford Hospital".

The Identikit images, quite simply, cannot be relied upon.

Cheers,

Graham

[reg1965]

Hi Vic

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.

I knew you couldn't resist quoting the judgement.

The appeal judgement doesn't give the results at all. It just summarises what the respondents view was as to the results, as shown at its height of hype by Mr Sweeney when he said that the judges should rely on it [the DNA].
The appellant (Mr Michael Hanratty) has been given a statement to the actual test results.

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.

I'm sorry Vic but you are way out of order here me old love. DNA testing using SGM+ or an equivalent system can only exclude someone from being part of an evidential profile that my dear old fruit is a fact. No DNA testing of any sort can state absolute guilt. You are just plain wrong me old sausage. Sorry to break it to you like that.

Detected in the same way but by using a greater number of PCR cycles. How is that the same. Please explain your reasoning here taking into account the next point.
A quantitation step, that is ascertaining the original amount of DNA template garnered from the sample is not followed by LCN whereas it must be with SGM+ to avoid signal overload at the high end and stochastic effects at the low end.
LCN is always employed below the stochastic threshold and therefore its results are not reliably reproducable. Therefore in LCN several aliquots are made up and tested and a consensus taken on which alleles appear more often. This is a purely subjective exercise and is not widely considered to be valid, except by the FSS and its clients. (including New Zealand and The Netherlands)

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.

Please give references to where this is reported. I cannot find anything that says this at all.

Hi Graham
I have worked in accounting for more than 20 years. I have prepared the final accounts of many a guesthouse and have not once used a visitors book in preparing accounts.

If this was something that the Revenue and Customs (as the 2 organsations are now jointly known) would need to inspect then I would have seen them with every job to perform a control on it.

All businesses keep their accounting records as they see fit. Ordinarily a receipt if wanted (not a statutory demand be the way) would be given, otherwise the transaction would be entered into the Cash Received Day Book.

I have not found any evidence that suggests that Mrs Grace Jones was fiddling the tax from her statements and testimony given in her involvement in the A6 murder trial. If you can find one I would like to see it.

Hi All
Mrs Jones seemed to have lost the plot after being rebuked by Mr Gorman over her conversation with Mr Evans. The rest of her testimony was therefore blighted by this indiscretion which as we all know had fatal repurcussions for James Hanratty.
Having said that Mr Swanwick could not help himself when he badgered Mrs Jones about the colour of Hanratty's hair. Mrs Jones then stated it was a little difficult to identify Hanratty at first because his hair had been dark when he stayed with her. This corroborates the colour of Hanratty's hair at the time of the murder.

Regards
Reg

[reg1965]

My own perception is that Valerie quite simply contradicted herself, and I remind you of her own statement, viz, "my memory of this man is fading fast".

Hi Graham
Valerie Stories 1st statement was withheld from the defence and not discovered until 1974. In it was the statement "After he shot Mike, he told me to call him jim, but I don't think that was his real name. The embolded emphasized part would have severely dented the prosecution case had it been disclosed.
Hardly helpful in the pursuit of justice, as far as Hanratty's life is concerned, is it Graham?
Why don't you want to question the DNA evidence. What are you afraid of? I have looked into it and have found that DNA evidence is nothing more than evidence that is used with other evidence to construct a case.
As long as DNA (or any other piece of forensic evidence) is not used to lead the investigation and proper lines of inquiry are followed then it can be very helpful.
I suggest that you read some of the LCN articles posted on the DNA thread and really make up your own mind rather than just accepting what 3 ignorant appeal judges tell you.

Regards
Reg

[Graham]

Reg,

High-flying Accountant? Top DNA chemist? Is there no end to your achievements? Have you swum the Channel yet, or discovered a cure for cancer?

If the visitors-book of a guest-house or hotel is not required as far as tax-evaluation is concerned, then why did not Grace Jones or Sherrard simply tell Swanwick to piss off and get his facts straight?

To be honest, were I still self-employed, I think I'd look elsewhere before I took reg1965 on as my accountant....

Concerning the DNA, I accept the results. Full Stop.

I believe Michael Sherrard also accepted the results.

I believe that any re-test is now not possible due to the lack of original forensic evidence.

Graham

[Graham]

Identikit

The following may be worth a read (although I fear the blinkers are on tonight, in certain quarters):

Taken from a conference "Facial Composites: Forensic Utility", joint project Universities of London and Lancaster, c. 2004.

Graham

[jimarilyn]

Reg,

High-flying Accountant? Top DNA chemist? Is there no end to your achievements? Have you swum the Channel yet, or discovered a cure for cancer?

Graham

You're noticeably (and unnecessarily) aggressive and sarcastic in your tone today Graham. You know what they say about sarcasm. I wish you'd lighten up a bit.

regards,
James

[reg1965]

Afternoon Graham

Reg,

High-flying Accountant? Top DNA chemist? Is there no end to your achievements? Have you swum the Channel yet, or discovered a cure for cancer?

There doesn't seem to be does there!

No channel swim in the offing but I did win my junior school year 2 egg and spoon race by a fair old distance...it was the chewing gum that clinched it for me!

No cure for cancer yet I'm afraid, but I did win last years British Computer Society prize for best final year student and individual project at my university...thanks for asking....I appreciate your interest.

If the visitors-book of a guest-house or hotel is not required as far as tax-evaluation is concerned, then why did not Grace Jones or Sherrard simply tell Swanwick to piss off and get his facts straight?

Who said anything about Mrs Jones books being used for tax evaluation? You keep insisting on this.

Swanwick used the second book to try to fill up the house for the those 2 days that Hanratty stayed at Ingledene.

He was not entirely successful.

He was a bit of a rotter to Mrs Jones by dropping the book on the floor whilst handing it to her. The pages all flew out and Swanwick just stuffed them back in, willy nilly before finally actually letting Mrs Jones have it.

To be honest, were I still self-employed, I think I'd look elsewhere before I took reg1965 on as my accountant....

I think that you would have to. I don't practice anymore and anyway my fees used to be quite steep.

Concerning the DNA, I accept the results. Full Stop.

You are an inquisitive little so and so aren't you?

I believe Michael Sherrard also accepted the results.

I think that you are correct here.

I believe that any re-test is now not possible due to the lack of original forensic evidence.

Correct again. Although a straight forward reexamination of the FSS's original graphs and reports wouldn't be difficult to perform.

Regards
Reg

[reg1965]

Daily Mirror 29/8/61

From the Mirror 29th August 1961

[jimarilyn]

From the Mirror 29th August 1961

Hi Reg,

The two highlighted paragraphs in that Mirror article speak volumes. I strongly doubt that the police would have allowed the identikit picture to be circulated and published so widely were they not convinced by Miss Storie that it was indeed a "true likeness". This identikit was compiled just 3 days after the murder when the image of the gunman's face was still very fresh in her mind. Can any Jimdiditites explain why it looks absolutely nothing like Hanratty but remarkably like Alphon ?

Sorry to repeat myself on this but it is a vitally important aspect of the case that cannot be over-stated.


regards,
James

[Victor]

“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.

Hi Tony,
The black and white photo of Hanratty on the front of Woffinden - what colour are the eyes in that photograph?

Small version here -> http://www.amazon.co.uk/Hanratty-Fin.../dp/0333710150

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

There is no evidence for that other than what people infer from the identikit, and no witness who will confirm it.

KR,
Vic.

[Victor]

Hi Reg,

I knew you couldn't resist quoting the judgement.

As I said, there's no alternative.

The appellant (Mr Michael Hanratty) has been given a statement to the actual test results.

Any idea if these have been published anywhere or are available anywhere?

I'm sorry Vic but you are way out of order here me old love. DNA testing using SGM+ or an equivalent system can only exclude someone from being part of an evidential profile that my dear old fruit is a fact. No DNA testing of any sort can state absolute guilt. You are just plain wrong me old sausage. Sorry to break it to you like that.

It's comparative, I know that. Just like fingerprinting is comparative - that pattern of whorls looks like that one, &tc.

That's an over-simplification. You know the details yourself, 2 copies of each STR, each with different numbers of repeats, the more matches the more certain that the DNA is from the person in question.

Detected in the same way but by using a greater number of PCR cycles. How is that the same. Please explain your reasoning here taking into account the next point.

Like chips are chips - some people cook in different oils, some double-cook them (Blumenthal triple-cooks his), but in the end it's still chips.

A quantitation step, that is ascertaining the original amount of DNA template garnered from the sample is not followed by LCN whereas it must be with SGM+ to avoid signal overload at the high end and stochastic effects at the low end.

This just highlights the problem that LCN is designed to overcome - the sample size being too small for SGM+

LCN is always employed below the stochastic threshold and therefore its results are not reliably reproducable.

The smaller the sample size, the more prone you are to statistical effects, that's elimentary. That's why...

Therefore in LCN several aliquots are made up and tested and a consensus taken on which alleles appear more often.

...which is a statistically valid workaround.

This is a purely subjective exercise and is not widely considered to be valid, except by the FSS and its clients. (including New Zealand and The Netherlands)

"subjective"?? It's basic statistical mathematics - increase the confidence of the overall result by repeating and averaging.

Please give references to where this is reported. I cannot find anything that says this at all.

Foot and Woffinden both quote segments of Grace Jones evidence.

All businesses keep their accounting records as they see fit. Ordinarily a receipt if wanted (not a statutory demand be the way) would be given, otherwise the transaction would be entered into the Cash Received Day Book.

Did Mrs Jones have one of those?

Mrs Jones seemed to have lost the plot after being rebuked by Mr Gorman over her conversation with Mr Evans. The rest of her testimony was therefore blighted by this indiscretion which as we all know had fatal repurcussions for James Hanratty.

Woffinden says she lied about it too.

KR,
Vic.

[Victor]

The two highlighted paragraphs in that Mirror article speak volumes. I strongly doubt that the police would have allowed the identikit picture to be circulated and published so widely were they not convinced by Miss Storie that it was indeed a "true likeness". This identikit was compiled just 3 days after the murder when the image of the gunman's face was still very fresh in her mind. Can any Jimdiditites explain why it looks absolutely nothing like Hanratty but remarkably like Alphon ?

Hi James,

Evaluating the identikit is subjective, some see a likeness to Hanratty (like Mrs France according to Woffinden) and others like yourself see a likeness to Alphon.

Personally I find it depends upon which pictures of Hanratty and Alphon you use for comparison. Of the six pixtures in Foot (2xAlphon, 2xHanratty, VS identikit, 2nd Identikit) placed together for comparison then it's quite hard to say which fits best as different parts of it resemble different parts each. I very strongly disagree that it "looks absolutely nothing like Hanratty".

KR,
Vic.

[Victor]

The two highlighted paragraphs in that Mirror article speak volumes.

Hi James,

What about the glaring error in the very next paragraph?

Three other people, whose names and adresses are being kept secret, have also seen the picture and agreed that it is accurate.

Two identikit images were released instead.

KR,
Vic.

[reg1965]

Hi Vic

That's an over-simplification. You know the details yourself, 2 copies of each STR, each with different numbers of repeats, the more matches the more certain that the DNA is from the person in question.

Of course you have to compare evidential and representative profiles but the fact is that DNA profiling using a valid reliable technique like SGM+ if someones profile does not match the evidential profile at any loci then they are excluded, full stop. This is not possible using LCN due to mentioned problems with the procedure.
As far as your quote above is concerned I do not know what you are talking about. Are you talking about the original template amplification process? (PCR)

Regards
Reg