a6 murder

[Mitch Rowe]

Hi All
If anyone believes that DNA testing in the lab is contamination free then perhaps they should have a quick shufty at this total balls up from Germany.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7966641.stm

Remember if you are innocent you have nothing to fear. Sleep well.

Reg

And thats an example of why unidentified DNA in the JBR case doesnt mean much unless we identify it. There are a million ways foreign DNA can appear.

[jimarilyn]

Hi all

It may been posted before but here is a piece from the Mirror on 23/1/62

It is an absolute travesty that the prosecution withheld VS's statement that said "my memory of this man is fading" from the defence until 1971. Nine years after Hanratty was dispatched into the pit.

What can anyone say about this?

Reg

Hi Reg,

Well said, it was indeed a great travesty that Miss Storie's lengthy police statement was kept from the defence. Her statement actually read "my memory of this man's face is fading". This part of her statement can be viewed just over 4 minutes into the video (chapter 5) from the link below.

This statement was taken about 3 weeks after the murder. The image of the man's face however, must have remained very fresh in her mind at the time she helped Det-Sgt Mackle compile the identikit-photo just 2 days after the murder.

The newspaper article (5 months afterr the murder) said that she had a "clear memory of what happened". If this was so, it's a great pity that only about 20% of what happened in the Morris Minor that night has ever been revealed to the general public. Somehow I feel that Mike Gregsten would have had much to say in the 5 plus hours that elapsed before he was shot and killed.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ujp3YWdSVAk

regards,
James

[Victor]

Hi All
If anyone believes that DNA testing in the lab is contamination free then perhaps they should have a quick shufty at this total balls up from Germany.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7966641.stm

Remember if you are innocent you have nothing to fear. Sleep well.

Reg

Hi all,

That article is really useful as it demonstrates the way extra foreign DNA can be introduced into a sample, in this case it was DNA from a factory worker who made the swabs that were used to take samples. What is doesn't do is explain how a DNA profile obtained from a semen sample can be removed! Extra profiles can easily be introduced from invesigators, lab technicians, factory workers, etc. What they can't do is vanish.

Keep trying Reg.

KR,
Vic.

[burkhilly]

[QUOTE=Victor;77496]Hi all,

That article is really useful as it demonstrates the way extra foreign DNA can be introduced into a sample, in this case it was DNA from a factory worker who made the swabs that were used to take samples. What is doesn't do is explain how a DNA profile obtained from a semen sample can be removed! Extra profiles can easily be introduced from invesigators, lab technicians, factory workers, etc. What they can't do is vanish.



The article states that the DNA may come from one of the factory workers, they don't know for sure yet.

The DNA evidence from from the 2002 JH Appeal, does not state that it came from semen. Given the miniscule amount of material used in typing DNA evidence using LCN testing, it could have been from anything. However, it probably was semen, given the possible cross contamination from the other stored materials.

Victor - please note I've used the words probably and possible, because unlike you I'm not 100% convinced on guilt or innocence. However, I do enjoy your posts!

[Victor]

Hi all,

The article states that the DNA may come from one of the factory workers, they don't know for sure yet.

"Now it has been determined that the cotton swabs used to collect DNA had been contaminated accidently by a woman working at an unidentified factory in Bavaria." sounds pretty definite to me.

The DNA evidence from from the 2002 JH Appeal, does not state that it came from semen. Given the miniscule amount of material used in typing DNA evidence using LCN testing, it could have been from anything. However, it probably was semen, given the possible cross contamination from the other stored materials.

Victor - please note I've used the words probably and possible, because unlike you I'm not 100% convinced on guilt or innocence. However, I do enjoy your posts!

The evidence doesn't state it was semen, but the sample was a semen stained fragment of underwear, and it is possible that they employed a technique where semen heads are seperated from other sources of DNA - Reg has kindly posted a link on the DNA thread to an article about this technique.

And that also has a bearing on the possibility of cross contamination, it could only have happened if you can find a way to remove the DNA profile from the rapist's semen...

KR,
Vic.

[Victor]

Vic, the several pages of posts in which you keep repeating this point back in Feb is a typical instance of why I gave up reading this thread over the last six weeks. It's a kind of trolling, to just go on and on repeating the same denials of perfectly valid points, with nothing new to offer (you are not the only culprit btw).

Sara, I could say the same of your repeated insistance that LCN is bad when you are perfectly aware that it is a legally accepted technique in this country.

It was VERY COMMON at the time for photos to be enhanced, usually by drawing or painting directly on the prints in either white or black, to aid 'definition' and make them look sharper.

There is therefore no way that you should assume that the photo used on the cover for which you provided the link, is in an original state. It's almost certain that the eyes were 'coloured in' to make them stand out more on the cover.

Fair enouigh, you're accusing Woffinden (or people acting on his behalf) of doctoring the photo used for the cover of his book. I'm happy to accept that, but it does leave the question of why would he do that? Why make the eyes dark when he could have made them "icy blue" which they are supposed to be?

If Woffinden (or people on his behalf) has manipulated data like that then what else has he manipulated? Can anything in his book be trusted?

That's a serious can of worms you've opened up there.

KR,
Vic.

[Tony]

It was DNA testing of the semen on the body that was checked with Kisko and it was discovered his sperm was headless, so it could be him. Someone else was subsequently convicted on the DNA evidence.

I am away at the moment but will return at the weekend.
Vic, this is not fair on this thread or to Mr Kisko. Mr Kisko had been dead and buried for many years and his innocence was proven without any reference whatsoever to DNA.
I hope this reads OK because I am not able to copy and paste and I have had more than a few drinks. Hic.

Tony.

[reg1965]

Hi all,

That article is really useful as it demonstrates the way extra foreign DNA can be introduced into a sample, in this case it was DNA from a factory worker who made the swabs that were used to take samples. What is doesn't do is explain how a DNA profile obtained from a semen sample can be removed! Extra profiles can easily be introduced from invesigators, lab technicians, factory workers, etc. What they can't do is vanish.

Keep trying Reg.

KR,
Vic.

If profiles cannot vanish what happened to the profiles from those who handled the knicker fragment and hanky in 1961?

And once you have a profile it is not possible to determine which type of bodily cell it eminated from.

Therefore if Hanratty's DNA was observed it doesn't follow it had to be semen.

Keep trying Vic

[Victor]

If profiles cannot vanish what happened to the profiles from those who handled the knicker fragment and hanky in 1961?

A couple of reasons:-
1. Who handled it? Was it direct contact or were they in polythene bags? Of course the knicker fragment never went to the trial.
2. Now prove that any contact that may have happened was sustained and sufficient to transfer DNA.

And once you have a profile it is not possible to determine which type of bodily cell it eminated from.

That's true, but if you are extracting DNA from a semen stain then you'll get the profile from the semen! Especially if you use that technique to ONLY get semen DNA.

Therefore if Hanratty's DNA was observed it doesn't follow it had to be semen.

Again true, but the DNA profile from the semen would be there, possibly as part of a mixed profile.

Keep trying Vic

Keep trying to explain what happened to the rapist's DNA profile from the semen stain without drawing the inevitable conclusion that Hanratty was the rapist.

KR,
Vic.

[Victor]

I am away at the moment but will return at the weekend.
Vic, this is not fair on this thread or to Mr Kisko. Mr Kisko had been dead and buried for many years and his innocence was proven without any reference whatsoever to DNA.
I hope this reads OK because I am not able to copy and paste and I have had more than a few drinks. Hic.

Tony.

Tony,

Are you sure Stefan was dead when his innocence was proven? I thought he spent 16 years in jail, was released and died a year or so later.

And it was because his sperm didn't have heads that he couldn't have killed Lesley Moleseed as she had fully-formed semen stains on her body.

KR,
Vic.

[reg1965]

Stefan Kisko

Hi Tony
I am sure when you get back you will see Victor's childish reply to your last post.

Firstly he shows his total ignorance of the case by stating that DNA exculpated Mr Kisco by saying

It was DNA testing of the semen on the body that was checked with Kisko and it was discovered his sperm was headless

Secondly when you pointed this out to him he then twists your reply by trying to right his original wrong by saying that you stated Kisko was dead before he was finally exonerated, which I know you did not infer.

It would seem best for everyone on this thread to just ignore this Victor person. He adds nothing to the A6 forum and in fact only posts here after pissing off others in other threads.

Regards
Reg

[reg1965]

Hi Reg,

Well said, it was indeed a great travesty that Miss Storie's lengthy police statement was kept from the defence. Her statement actually read "my memory of this man's face is fading". This part of her statement can be viewed just over 4 minutes into the video (chapter 5) from the link below.

This statement was taken about 3 weeks after the murder. The image of the man's face however, must have remained very fresh in her mind at the time she helped Det-Sgt Mackle compile the identikit-photo just 2 days after the murder.

The newspaper article (5 months afterr the murder) said that she had a "clear memory of what happened". If this was so, it's a great pity that only about 20% of what happened in the Morris Minor that night has ever been revealed to the general public. Somehow I feel that Mike Gregsten would have had much to say in the 5 plus hours that elapsed before he was shot and killed.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ujp3YWdSVAk

regards,
James

Hi James
Well put. Your knowledge of the case is top class

Many regards
Reg

[Sara]

Sara, I could say the same of your repeated insistance that LCN is bad when you are perfectly aware that it is a legally accepted technique in this country.



Fair enouigh, you're accusing Woffinden (or people acting on his behalf) of doctoring the photo used for the cover of his book. I'm happy to accept that, but it does leave the question of why would he do that? Why make the eyes dark when he could have made them "icy blue" which they are supposed to be?

If Woffinden (or people on his behalf) has manipulated data like that then what else has he manipulated? Can anything in his book be trusted?

That's a serious can of worms you've opened up there.

KR,
Vic.

Victor LCN DNA evidence may be 'legally accepted' in this country at the moment; that does not make it acceptable to me, nor to a lot of other people who have looked into the technique. It's accepted in very few jurisdictions, it's only promoted asd 'safe' by people with a vested interest in seeing it succeed, I don't think ANY conviction relying on it is safe, and I shall not be at all surprised when it ceases to be accepted here (which given the ongoing research, and the revelations which are constantly coming to light, will not imo be long!)

If you think Woffinden - or Paul Foot - had any input whatever into the cover of his book, you clearly know nothing at all about publishing!

Art directors and 'marketing people' choose and design book covers, not authors (or even editors). It's possible they were briefly consulted on the subject - ie 'shall we have a portrait of Hanratty?' - but even that is a rare concession, and an author hads to be very 'bankiable' and well known to even have that much input. The actual design treatment would owe nothing necessarily to historical accuracy - they woudl just be trying to create an image which woudl grab the passing buyer in the bookshop. That is ALL.

[Sara]

I am away at the moment but will return at the weekend.
Vic, this is not fair on this thread or to Mr Kisko. Mr Kisko had been dead and buried for many years and his innocence was proven without any reference whatsoever to DNA.
I hope this reads OK because I am not able to copy and paste and I have had more than a few drinks. Hic.

Tony.

Documentary on the Kiszko case starting ITV1 at 10.30 for an hour.

[jimarilyn]

Hi Sara
Your life is a rollercoaster at the mo by the sound of it!

Regarding Alphon, I passed on the news of his death to Bob Woffinden who was unaware of it at the time. Bob could not find out anymore from Private Eye where the information must have been phoned in to. That's as far as it goes for now.

Regards
Reg

Hi Reg,

I sent an e-mail to the Independent a few days ago to see if they could elaborate any further on Richard Ingrams' meagre article. I have a sneaking feeling Ingrams knows a lot more than he revealed in that article.

No reply from them so far, and I'm not holding my breath.....

Considering the fact that Alphon was the original and prime suspect in possibly the most high profile murder case in 20th century British history, I'm baffled as to why there's been no further information anywhere on the internet regarding his demise. You'd think somebody, somewhere, knows as much (if not more) as Ingrams. If so, they're certainly keeping it to themselves.


regards,
James