a6 murder

[Victor]

Given that LCN analyses can conceivably generate results from as little material as a single cell of an individual, the only way to be confident that results have not been obtained solely through contamination is to demonstrate conclusively with continuity records that contamination is not even remotely possible

The major problem with the above quote is that the chances of an allelic drop out and drop in occurring are small, and each has to happen up to 26 times (13 sites, two alleles at each site) so even if the chance of it happening at one site is 50%, then for it to happen 26 times is 0.0000015%, and that's just for the one analysis, each is done 3 times.

So the chance of getting a completely different profile is 1 in 302,231,454,903,657,293,676,544. For comparison, the chance of winning the UK lotto is 1 in 13,983,816.

That's why the quote is peppered with qualifiers like "can conceivably" and "not even remotely".

Other factors to take into account:-
If there's more than "a single cell" (there's no way of telling) then the chances of drop in and out reduce.
If the sample is treated to seperate out only intact sperm heads, which is highly likely to have taken place in the case of the knicker fragment, then the chance reduces drastically.

KR,
Vic.

[reg1965]

The major problem with the above quote is that the chances of an allelic drop out and drop in occurring are small, and each has to happen up to 26 times (13 sites, two alleles at each site) so even if the chance of it happening at one site is 50%, then for it to happen 26 times is 0.0000015%, and that's just for the one analysis, each is done 3 times.

So the chance of getting a completely different profile is 1 in 302,231,454,903,657,293,676,544. For comparison, the chance of winning the UK lotto is 1 in 13,983,816.

That's why the quote is peppered with qualifiers like "can conceivably" and "not even remotely".

Other factors to take into account:-
If there's more than "a single cell" (there's no way of telling) then the chances of drop in and out reduce.
If the sample is treated to seperate out only intact sperm heads, which is highly likely to have taken place in the case of the knicker fragment, then the chance reduces drastically.

KR,
Vic.

Hi Victor
LCN was used in Hanratty because the amount of original DNA template on the existing evidential samples was smaller that that which could be reliably ascertained using SGM+. Hence the inclusive results from 1995.

With LCN you cannot use simple exponential or product formulas to arrive at a confident probablistic value of profile rarity, given any number of runs, because of the lack of quantitation of original template that LCN deals with as opposed to those of validated systems (SGM+ etc.).

You also assuming that the FSS had obtained a full single profile of Hanratty from the evidential samples using LCN.

Given the quote from Dr Budowle regarding mixtures and LCN it would be invidious for the FSS to say that they could reliably extract Ms Storie's or for that matter, if ascertained correctly, Mr Gregsten's DNA from that of James Hanratty.

due to the fact that LCN is not an exculpatory practice, it would also logically follow that Peter Alphon could not be excluded either .

The chances of allelic drop in and drop out are not small but unpredictable. They cannot be reproduced because they are symptomatic of the LCN process. That is a major point.

The chances of drop-in and drop-out don't fall but are alleviated by the quantitation of the original amount of template DNA which, if above recogized standards, will reflect enough RFU's to appear above standard (not LCN) RFU thresholds. A quantitation step is vitally important in DNA analysis as too much and too little original template will cause proper (ie SGM+) testing kits to fail.

ALL DNA samples are extracted by swabbing and not as you state by picking just the bits you want. That is why problems with profile mixtures are important, inasmuch as they are unreliable, with regard to LCN as mentioned previously; as the swabbing procedure will pick up anything in the target area.

You certainly seem to have more confidence in LCN than Dr Whitaker, who has been forced to admit it's limitations in open court. Do you know something that LCN's developer doesn't?

regards
Reg

[reg1965]

If there's more than "a single cell" (there's no way of telling) then the chances of drop in and out reduce.

[my emboldening]

Hi Victor
I nearly forgot to add;

If there's is no way of telling how would the FSS be able to discern a sperm head or a certain distribution of DNA consistent with sexual intercourse between Ms Storie and her rapist?

Anyway that is what the quantitation step is for in validated systems (SGM+ et al, but not including LCN), to ascertain how much DNA (does not discriminate on the cell origin) is there before proceeding with the test to be able to reproduce reliable results.

sorry about that
Reg

[Victor]

LCN was used in Hanratty because the amount of original DNA template on the existing evidential samples was smaller that that which could be reliably ascertained using SGM+. Hence the inclusive results from 1995.

Hi Reg,
Yes LCN was used because of the scarcity of source material, which negates half of the reasons for the quantitative steps in SGM+.

With LCN you cannot use simple exponential or product formulas to arrive at a confident probablistic value of profile rarity, given any number of runs, because of the lack of quantitation of original template that LCN deals with as opposed to those of validated systems (SGM+ etc.).

Yes, but I didn't, I used a statistical analysis to show how ridiculous denying the exculpatory value of LCN is. Basically if a peak appears in an LCN profile that isn't in a suspects profile then that could be a result of allelic drop in and therefore a single difference can't be used to eliminate the suspect, however, if there are multiple differences then the chances of all of those mismatches being as a result of allelic drop in (or out for the reverse - peak in suspects profile, not in LCN profile) then it can safely be concluded that the suspect is innocent.

You also assuming that the FSS had obtained a full single profile of Hanratty from the evidential samples using LCN.

I'm assuming that they got a result or pair of results at a majority of the 13 loci. And of course the comparative profile of Hanratty wouldn't need to be done by LCN, that would be via SGM+.

Given the quote from Dr Budowle regarding mixtures and LCN it would be invidious for the FSS to say that they could reliably extract Ms Storie's or for that matter, if ascertained correctly, Mr Gregsten's DNA from that of James Hanratty.

Why? You posted the link which described the process of separating male (sperm heads) from other DNA and the 'any contamination would have to be semen' comments seems to confirm that it was used.

due to the fact that LCN is not an exculpatory practice, it would also logically follow that Peter Alphon could not be excluded either .

As I described above, if there are mulitple mismatches between the rapists' profile and PLAs then it is safe to exclude him.

The chances of allelic drop in and drop out are not small but unpredictable. They cannot be reproduced because they are symptomatic of the LCN process. That is a major point.

Unpredictable in the sense that you cannot predict whether it has occurred or not, but testing on a known profile has given an empirical statistical analysis of how frequently it occurs.

A quantitation step is vitally important in DNA analysis as too much and too little original template will cause proper (ie SGM+) testing kits to fail.

The quantitation step is necessary for SGM+ kits, but as you stated, the chances of too much DNA for LCN is negligible, and too little DNA would fail to give any meaningful results. Therefore the quantitation step isn't necessary for LCN, and definitely not "vital".

ALL DNA samples are extracted by swabbing and not as you state by picking just the bits you want. That is why problems with profile mixtures are important, inasmuch as they are unreliable, with regard to LCN as mentioned previously; as the swabbing procedure will pick up anything in the target area.

You posted the link to the sperm separation technique, I just read it and concluded that it was probably used because of various comments on the results.

In addition in the Moleseed\Castree case (certainly on the ITV True Crimes program shown last month) the DNA sample was obtained by performing a solvent extraction of tape fragments that had been taken from the victims clothing not by swabbing - that destroys your "All DNA samples" comment.

KR,
Vic.

[Victor]

If there's is no way of telling how would the FSS be able to discern a sperm head or a certain distribution of DNA consistent with sexual intercourse between Ms Storie and her rapist?

Hi Reg,
From the link you posted on the DNA thread: The sperm heads are seperated out, the profile(s) obtained from that part of the sample are derived solely from sperm heads.

The comment is "a typical distribution of male and female DNA following an act of sexual intercourse" and I don't know whether that means spatial distribution from different regions of the knicker fragment or whether some attempt has been made to evaluate relative distribution of the male-female DNA ratios. It's not stated so I can't really give a definitive answer, as I don't have access to the raw results.

KR,
Vic.

[babybird67]

hello everyone

I am new to this case, and reading this thread with great interest and enthusiasm (my thanks for Vic for both drawing my attention to it and discussing it with me in chat the other night).

If anyone has any copies of the relevant books they wouldn't mind lending to me (I'll pay postage and return the books in the condition they arrived once i have read them) i'd be very grateful.

I am only up to post 1500-odd in this mammoth thread, but wanted to comment on something JH said, as quoted by Jimarilyn. If this has been said before/addressed before, forgive me; i am getting through the thread as fast as i can!

Basically, when challenged regarding his change of alibi, JH apparently phrased himself thus:

Mr. Swanwick : Why did you never go back (to Rhyl) to try to pinpoint it (the boarding house) ?

James Hanratty : Because at this stage when I spoke to Mr Acott over the phone I know I had already told Mr Acott a lie about Liverpool and it was quite obvious to me inside that I never committed this crime and I had nothing at all to fear.

I have emphasised the bit that stands out for me with bold and underlining.

Does this turn of phrase not sound extremely strange and convoluted to anybody else? "It was obvious to me inside that i never committed this crime"...what an odd way of saying "I am innocent." Especially for a man with learning difficulties...why not say, "I am innocent and didn't have a cast iron alibi which worried me." Something about expressing himself this way doesn't sit right with me, and i have probably not explained it properly, it is just a very odd way of saying what in effect could have been said a lot more simply and effectively with the three word assertion, "I am innocent" or "I didnt do it."

Also, i have found some of the pro-JH's innocence arguments a little amusing and very contradictory in places...some comments have questioned the veracity of Valerie Storie's accounts of what took place in that Morris Minor and the integrity of her identification...sorry i don't have the actual quote but somebody said something along the lines of, "Well we dont have a lot of information about her character to go on", therefore implying she may well have been economical with the truth. The very same people go on to assert that a known and convicted serial criminal, who had no qualms about lying and robbing people, was essentially someone who was "open and honest" and whom we really should trust when he asseverates that he really did not kill or rape anybody, honest Guv, cos otherwise he would have confessed to it. So it is all right to doubt a woman whose life was totally stolen from her in the most horrific of manners, with no criminal record, and who has led a life of lawfulness and productiveness since; but really we ought to believe a known, convicted serial criminal could not possibly be capable of lying in a situation where not to have lied would have cost him his life! I find these dare i say hypocritical approaches to the veracity of the protagonists involved quite startling, to say the least!

so Jimarilyn, when you say:

One thing that always impressed me about James Hanratty was his basic honesty and openness. I know that might sound contradictory given that he was a car thief and burglar

I'd have to say, yes, extremely contradictory, and seeing JH through rose-tinted glasses i think! People who are honest and open don't make their living from lying to people and stealing their possession from them!


and when you say...

but deep down, I believe, the family values imparted* to him from his devoutly Catholic parents stayed with him always.

i would have to say, "always"? As in "always" apart from the times he was involved in lying and theivery as in the times he was caught for his crimes and sentenced to jail? One can guarantee that those crimes he was caught for were not his only crimes!


It is also common sense to point out that the victim of any crime wants the perpetrator of that crime caught and punished; there is absolutely no point in securing the conviction and punishment of somebody innocent on the part of the victim. It would run counter to common sense completely. Especially since had the killer remained at large Valerie's life could quite possibly have been at risk. I have no reason to doubt Valerie Storie's account of what happened to her and who perpetrated the rape and attempted murder on her...after all, she was there, and she was a damn sight more honest and open in her lifetime, not resorting to criminality, than the man who i believe attacked her.


I'd absolutely love to get hold of Dixie France's documents to discover exactly what prompted his suicide...there is definitely a lot more to this case than apparent to intial understanding.

However my current position is accepting of the DNA results which confirm Hanratty's guilt...it is i believe extremely difficult to conceive of a situation in which contamination which would completely erode the killer's DNA whilst leaving both the victims' DNA could have occurred.

I also believe he should not have been condemned to death on the evidence available at the time, considering the result of a guilty verdict would have been death, there was just not enough concrete evidence to hang a man for.

well, back to reading!

[Limehouse]

Hi Babybird and welcome to the thread,

I have lots to say and very little time in which to say it right now so first, i will congratulate you on a thought-provoking first post. However, I have to add that almost without excpetion, those of us who believe in Hanratty's innocense also have the highest respect for Valerie and only question her account of the events of that night in terms of the inconsistencies between her earlier and later account of those events. More later (with any luck).

Julie

[Graham]

Welcome to the A6 Case, Babybird! Your post will most definitely provoke comment, I think...

Whether you think JH innocent or guilty, the A6 Case remains fascinating and absorbing, with more unanswered questions and intertwined mysteries than you can shake a stick at.

Cheers,

Graham

[babybird67]

HI Limehouse

thanks for your welcome to the thread. Your postings have been well-balanced and thoughtful and i am enjoying reading them.

Another comment regarding something somebody said way way early on in the thread...regarding why didn't Ms Storie want the gunman to stop the car in places where they might be discovered...this is just the projection of my mind into the mind of someone being held at gunpoint in the car, but my own fears would be, once we stop, he might kill us...better to keep going as long as we can...better to keep journeying than to face the possible consequences of arriving...hope that makes sense, but which of us could behave truly rationally and perfectly reasonably under such stressful situations as being held hostage at gunpoint? I don't think i could.

[babybird67]

hi Graham

thank you for your welcome. What do you think about the manner in which JH expressed himself...does it strike you as odd at all, or am i reading too much into it!

Congratulations by the way on your excellent posts on this thread...i am enjoying reading them very much!

[Graham]

Hi Babybird,

Thanks for your kind comments!

JH was, at best, rather inarticulate, and like many such people I think he tried too hard to 'speak proper'. Hence his speech was sometimes convoluted and awkward, verging on the incomprehensible, possibly. However, check the conclusion of Prof Fry of the Phonetics Dept, University College, who examined JH and reported:

"His speech is in every way typical of a man with his background and upbringing. His pronunciation is that of a boy of low educational attainment brought up in London. I could not detect any feature of his pronunciation which could be regarded as a personal peculiarity. His mode of speech was shared by many thousands of Londoners".

Fair enough, but his brother Michael claimed that JH would never use a word like 'institution', which Valerie Storie said he used in the car. I don't think 'institution' is such a difficult word, and I wonder if Michael was being a bit disingenuous in his support for his brother.

Graham

[Tony]

Hi Babybird,

Thanks for your kind comments!

JH was, at best, rather inarticulate, and like many such people I think he tried too hard to 'speak proper'. Hence his speech was sometimes convoluted and awkward, verging on the incomprehensible, possibly. However, check the conclusion of Prof Fry of the Phonetics Dept, University College, who examined JH and reported:

"His speech is in every way typical of a man with his background and upbringing. His pronunciation is that of a boy of low educational attainment brought up in London. I could not detect any feature of his pronunciation which could be regarded as a personal peculiarity. His mode of speech was shared by many thousands of Londoners".

Fair enough, but his brother Michael claimed that JH would never use a word like 'institution', which Valerie Storie said he used in the car. I don't think 'institution' is such a difficult word, and I wonder if Michael was being a bit disingenuous in his support for his brother.

Graham

Hello Graham,

Yes: “His mode of speech was shared by many thousands of Londoners".

But probably not by the men on the ID parade where Valerie picked him out by the sound of his voice or accent or whatever.

By the way in about six hours in the car, and after two of them had been in the Ale House did any of them feel the need for a toilet break?

Tony.

[reg1965]

Hi babybird67

I am new to this case, and reading this thread with great interest and enthusiasm (my thanks for Vic for both drawing my attention to it and discussing it with me in chat the other night).
If anyone has any copies of the relevant books they wouldn't mind lending to me (I'll pay postage and return the books in the condition they arrived once i have read them) i'd be very grateful.

Reading about the case would be a good idea. I am a very poor man and my own library of A6 books is the holy of holies. My very good friend Tony has been known to donate books on the case to all and sundry. My advice would be to PM him.

I am only up to post 1500-odd in this mammoth thread, but wanted to comment on something JH said, as quoted by Jimarilyn. If this has been said before/addressed before, forgive me; i am getting through the thread as fast as i can!

And as an aside I would fully quote others posts, rather than taking them out of context.

Basically, when challenged regarding his change of alibi, JH apparently phrased himself thus:

Originally Posted by jimarilyn
Mr. Swanwick : Why did you never go back (to Rhyl) to try to pinpoint it (the boarding house) ?
James Hanratty : Because at this stage when I spoke to Mr Acott over the phone I know I had already told Mr Acott a lie about Liverpool and it was quite obvious to me inside that I never committed this crime and I had nothing at all to fear.

I have emphasised the bit that stands out for me with bold and underlining.
Does this turn of phrase not sound extremely strange and convoluted to anybody else? "It was obvious to me inside that i never committed this crime"...what an odd way of saying "I am innocent." Especially for a man with learning difficulties...why not say, "I am innocent and didn't have a cast iron alibi which worried me." Something about expressing himself this way doesn't sit right with me, and i have probably not explained it properly, it is just a very odd way of saying what in effect could have been said a lot more simply and effectively with the three word assertion, "I am innocent" or "I didnt do it."
Also, i have found some of the pro-JH's innocence arguments a little amusing and very contradictory in places...some comments have questioned the veracity of Valerie Storie's accounts of what took place in that Morris Minor and the integrity of her identification...sorry i don't have the actual quote but somebody said something along the lines of, "Well we dont have a lot of information about her character to go on", therefore implying she may well have been economical with the truth. The very same people go on to assert that a known and convicted serial criminal, who had no qualms about lying and robbing people, was essentially someone who was "open and honest" and whom we really should trust when he asseverates that he really did not kill or rape anybody, honest Guv, cos otherwise he would have confessed to it. So it is all right to doubt a woman whose life was totally stolen from her in the most horrific of manners, with no criminal record, and who has led a life of lawfulness and productiveness since; but really we ought to believe a known, convicted serial criminal could not possibly be capable of lying in a situation where not to have lied would have cost him his life! I find these dare i say hypocritical approaches to the veracity of the protagonists involved quite startling, to say the least!
so Jimarilyn, when you say:

One thing that always impressed me about James Hanratty was his basic honesty and openness. I know that might sound contradictory given that he was a car thief and burglar

I'd have to say, yes, extremely contradictory, and seeing JH through rose-tinted glasses i think! People who are honest and open don't make their living from lying to people and stealing their possession from them!
and when you say...

but deep down, I believe, the family values imparted* to him from his devoutly Catholic parents stayed with him always.

i would have to say, "always"? As in "always" apart from the times he was involved in lying and theivery as in the times he was caught for his crimes and sentenced to jail? One can guarantee that those crimes he was caught for were not his only crimes!

It is also common sense to point out that the victim of any crime wants the perpetrator of that crime caught and punished; there is absolutely no point in securing the conviction and punishment of somebody innocent on the part of the victim. It would run counter to common sense completely. Especially since had the killer remained at large Valerie's life could quite possibly have been at risk. I have no reason to doubt Valerie Storie's account of what happened to her and who perpetrated the rape and attempted murder on her...after all, she was there, and she was a damn sight more honest and open in her lifetime, not resorting to criminality, than the man who i believe attacked her.

You have emphasized what you liked. But the full post by my good friend James actually read.

Hi All,Having just returned from holiday at my sister's at the weekend I have spent part of the last couple or so days catching up with the numerous posts submitted while I have been away. I must say I have been very impressed with new poster Reg1965's knowledge,understanding and insight of the case. I took Paul Foot's excellent book with me to re-read on holiday.

Paul asks the question "Why did Hanratty not talk of Rhyl from the outset ? Why, when he knew he was wanted for the A6 murder, did he not go to Rhyl to check on the boarding house in which he said he stayed ? Here is Hanratty's own answer* :

Mr. Swanwick : Why did you never go back (to Rhyl) to try to pinpoint it (the boarding house) ?

James Hanratty : Because at this stage when I spoke to Mr Acott over the phone I know I had already told Mr Acott a lie about Liverpool and it was quite obvious to me inside that I never committed this crime and I had nothing at all to fear. But--let me finish-- as this case eventually went along I got so frightened with the evidence what was being brought forward to me, with the lies and such things as what has happened in this witness box-- well, it is disgraceful to talk about them. But I am just trying to suggest at this stage when I spoke to Mr Acott I did not fear any danger, because I knew in my heart and soul I did not commit this crime.

Mr Swanwick : But you had from 7th to 11th of October, and you were in Liverpool or Blackpool-- in that area-- when you could have gone along and tried to find this boarding house, and if you had found it all your troubles would have been over, would they not ?

James Hanratty : Yes, in that sense, yes, but in the state I was in at that time i was very depressed and with the tension in the papers, it is very hard to say how your mind will react at that stage. I was a wanted man by Mr Acott. He wanted me to interview me. It was in the papers and the police wanted to interview me. I could not go and knock at houses in Rhyl and ask if I stayed there on 23rd and 22nd August. I was a wanted man. I had to check and those houses I had to go to.

One thing that always impressed me about James Hanratty was his basic honesty and openness. I know that might sound contradictory given that he was a car thief and burglar, but deep down, I believe, the family values imparted* to him from his devoutly Catholic parents stayed with him always. Examples of his openness and truthfulness are littered throughout Paul Foot's book ( and Bob Woffinden's book ).

(MY emboldening)
If you knew anything about this case you would have realized that certain important documents about Ms Stories evidence were withheld from both the defence and the jury at the original trial.
These Interview statements recorded that Ms Storie doubted that when the killer said call me Jim, that that was his real name along with the fact that she said that her recollection of the killers face is fading.
I do not lack sympathy for Ms Stories plight but I do have an issue with the fact that she went into the witness box at both the pre-trial hearing and the trail itself and stated without doubt that Hanratty was the killer, having initially described someone who didn't look like Hanratty and first picked out someone who she later admitted looked like Alphon. After all, all we know of that journey comes from Ms Storie herself who was quite able to give dubious exacting witness evidence when she herself was not at all sure of the killers identity.
Hanratty himself explains, quite plainly, his own position when questioned by Graham Swanwick;

The man who committed this is a maniac and a savage. I know what you have proved here. I am not a man the court can approve of, but I am not a maniac of any kind. I can prove it with my past girlfriends. I am a decent - I cannot say honest - but I try to live a good and respectable life except for my house breakings.

Foot(1988, p285)

I'd absolutely love to get hold of Dixie France's documents to discover exactly what prompted his suicide...there is definitely a lot more to this case than apparent to intial understanding.

France's suicide could not have been propmted by anything other than the persistent phone calls of Alphon. Paul Foot had access to France's letters and said that nothing pertinent were contained within them. Anyway, if there were anything against Hanratty then it would have been disclosed in the appeal of 2002. If there is anything at all to the France letters then it can only describe a conspiricy to frame an innocent Hanratty.

However my current position is accepting of the DNA results which confirm Hanratty's guilt...it is i believe extremely difficult to conceive of a situation in which contamination which would completely erode the killer's DNA whilst leaving both the victims' DNA could have occurred.

DNA evidence cannot confirm anybody's guilt. No deposits of DNA can erode any other deposit. The problem in this case is that a mixed profile of DNA would have been found. As Dr Budowle stated, and quoted by me,

'Mixture analyses and confirmation of a mixture are not reliable with LCN typing, because of imbalance of heterozygote alleles, increased production of stutter products, and allele drop-in can occur.

I also believe he should not have been condemned to death on the evidence available at the time, considering the result of a guilty verdict would have been death, there was just not enough concrete evidence to hang a man for.

At least we agree on something!

well, back to reading!

You have plenty of that to do. It is the most fascinating case ever in British legal history. Forget JTR.

regards
Reg

[babybird67]

about halfway through

I'm about halfway through the thread now, and it's amazingly interesting still, and apologies if the things i am about to say have already been said, but i need to say them...

It strikes me sometimes reading some of the pro-Hanratty postings that there is almost a tendency to put VS on trial....questions about her honesty etc (where perhaps naive trust is placed in a proven liar and serial criminal, who is conversely labelled as "open and honest", inexplicably to my mind), questions about whether she has accounted for every second she spent in that car under the most dreadful stress of her life etc. VS is not on trial. She was (is) the surviving witness to a brutal murder; she herself was raped by the same man, and the victim of an attempted murder. This is sadly typical of rape cases in general, where the victim is often put on trial, her every utterance questioned and undermined, and is perhaps why the figure for convictions in cases of rape is so shamefully low at 5% (approximately, i believe).

A great deal of the "doubt" comes from her misidentification of Michael Clark in the intial line up. About which some points have struck me as i am reading.

1] There is often the claim that Clark resembled Alphon, as if VS must have chosen him for that reason, thereby the implication being that it was because she was remembering being raped by Alphon that she must have chosen a lookalike. This would be a partially credible argument but for one salient point...the fact that Alphon himself was in that line-up. Is there anyone out there who would like to argue that Clark resembled Alphon to a greater extent than Alphon resembled himself? That, surely, would be an incredible position to take? There was obviously something else about Clark that induced VS to choose him...resembling Alphon or otherwise was not a relevant issue, as explained above.

2] There has been the suggestion that VS was at fault for not asking the men in the first line-up to speak...somebody commented that she should have known she could have asked this. Hello? I am 42, have never been the victim of a crime which required me to ID someone from a line-up, and would not have a clue about Police line-up procedures. She was 22, a law-abiding citizen, the recent victim of rape and attempted murder, wheeled out of hospital mid-treatment to make an identification. Why on earth should it be assumed that she should be in any way familiar with how Police line-ups operate??? She had already explained that she had not seen the perpetrator clearly during the crime but for a very brief period, and to me it attests to her integrity that she asked the Police before choosing Hanratty if she could possibly hear the men speak, since it was by his voice that she would be much more certain of choosing the man who had assaulted her and murdered her lover. VS imo did nothing but the right thing every step of the way and for her honesty to be impugned without good cause is very disturbing to my mind.

3] I'd like to ask the pro-Hanratty "faction" (you know who you are ) whether blind people would be permitted to identify their attackers or whether the criminal fraternity should merely start attacking blind victims and then say, "well, they didnt get a good look at my face so we have to discount their evidence and undermine their credibility."

The murderer/rapist combined with circumstances did everything they could to render VS "blind":

a/ he wore a handkerchief obscuring his face
b/ he ordered VS to keep her face forwards whilst he was behind her
c/ it was pitch black, not ideal conditions to view somebody even face to face
d/ VS herself had defective eyesight, hence her glasses, which i am assuming she was not wearing as she was raped (can anyone confirm this?)

Given these circumstances, all of which were out of VS's control, one has to understand that identification by sight alone was not safe; VS did the responsible thing by requesting that the suspects in the line-up speak, since her aural memory of her assailant would have been much stronger. Why is is a problem that his voice was used to identify him? Is there any evidence for what has been claimed on ths thread that Hanratty was the only Cockney on that line-up or is that just hearsay (ironically enough!)?

It also has to be pointed out once again that the man's accent was not the only aspect of his speech which was used to ID Hanratty...it was his tone, pitch etc as well, which, when combined with what she remembered seeing, made VS absolutely sure she had chosen the right man...and she had (vis a vis DNA results).

I am sure there is much more and i will be back again before i finish the thread to contribute more...but to conclude i will just say there is a joke from Mock the Week which i recalled when reading the points about VS's identification of her assailant and how credible it is:

there is a round where a running joke is created for people to contribute to...the title of this was "Inadvisable things to say in court"...Andy Parsons came forward, and spoke as a criminal, saying, "How could she have seen my face Me'Lud, I was wearing a balaclava!"

Pertinent, methinks!

[Sam Flynn]

And as an aside I would fully quote others posts, rather than taking them out of context.

I'd recommend that folks should try to "snip" any quotes appropriately, Reg - not doing so can make them very tedious to read. A bit of judicious pruning never did anyone any harm, so if I were you, I'd get yer judicious prunes out and fill your boots

</friendly advice>