a6 murder

[Victor]

It's another of those "damned if you do, damned if you don't" moments. Personally I don't have a strong opinion (yet) of whether it would be more fair with or without the skull caps. I bet that if the police had offered to dye Hanratty's hair back to black before the parade then his supporters would claim that that was an attempt to frame him, despite the fact that his hair was dyed black at the time of the crime.

Kleinman was there, he was happy for the ID parade to go ahead, that should be the end of all protests that it was unfair. Of course that leaves the path open for people to claim Kleinman was incompetent, which suggests that objectors can be objectionable no matter what happens.

KR,
Vic.

[SteveS]

Hi all
Long time no post.

About the DNA evidence that has been talked about a lot recently here are a few points that should be considered.

The first to be observed is that in 1961, DNA had been little heard of let alone recognized.

Professor Jamieson also recognizes this when he says:

This should not be taken as criticism of the initial collection – how could those involved be aware of what was to come? – but of the subsequent failure to appreciate the problems arising from that initial process.

LCN should not have been used in evidence in the Hanratty appeal and that the defence's acquiescence to the prosecutions statement that Peter Alphon was not the A6 killer is answered by Bruce Budowle (formerly the chief scientific officer for the FBI) when he says:

LCN results cannot be used to exclude an individual. LCN typing should not be applied to post-conviction analyses and examination of old cases without substantial consideration. LCN contamination from handling may have occurred and this possibility needs to be considered.

Hanratty's defence at the appeal was admittedly ill-advised over DNA but the fact remains that contamination could not be ruled out. The judges themselves state that. In fact the hanky, whether it was Hanratty's or not, was mixed in with Hanratty's other garments all throughout the trial. The remaining knicker fragment was cut the day AFTER Hanratty's green suit was examined by Dr Grant.

The judges are quoted as saying at paragraph 114

The records are incomplete but there would seem to be no reason for any of James Hanratty’s items of clothing or for his intimate samples to be present in the laboratory at the same time as the knickers or the handkerchief. There is, of course, the possibility that all the exhibits were stored in the same place, albeit separately packaged, which, it is submitted, might have provided the opportunity for secondary contamination. Dr Nickolls is dead. Mr Howard is still alive though in poor health. His recollection is that the dangers of contamination were recognised even in 1961 and that the practice was to take elementary precautions such as making sure that clothing from victim and suspect were not examined on the same day.

and at paragraph 115

If the usual procedures of the time were followed it would seem doubtful that any one of the exhibits, barring possibly the gun and certain of the cartridges, would ever have been removed from its packaging or container.

Professor Jamieson says this about the records required to ensure that DNA samples are free from any type of contamination:

This refers to the associated topic of continuity; can the provenance of the item be unambiguously and completely accounted by reliable contemporary documents. I emphasise contemporary because it is not, in my opinion, satisfactory to have someone produce a statement some time (especially years) after an event that says, “I did X”, or just as worrying, “It was the practice then to X”.

and he goes on to say

The point of establishing continuity is clearly to establish that it was not possible for contamination to occur.

If as Roger Mann said on the BBC's Horizon prgramme in 2002:

We only have one profile. That profile matches James Hanratty. If that was a contaminant, if that was due to contamination we would expect two profiles, one from James Hanratty due to the contamination and one from the original killer.

Then were did the judges come up with the DNA of Storie and that alleged of Gregsten that is in the appeal ruling. We go from 3 profiles (at appeal) to only one by the BBC. There is a serious contradiction here.

If there were more than one contributor to the profile on the knicker fragment then Dr Budowles advice might be worth taking on board when he says:

There are stochastic effects and the potential of contamination which impact LCN typing. The interpretation guidelines are not well-established, but those that exist are better suited for single-source samples. Mixture interpretation has not been validated.

So if the appeal ruling is right and 3 profiles were extracted and the technique has not been validated then we have another problem.

Jamieson says that:

We are now seeing cases where the profiles from mixtures are simply not clear enough to enable any reliable conclusion as to the profiles of the potential contributors. That no longer provides a problem for some. They simply pick the alleles from a suspect that are present in the mixture and decide for themselves how strong the evidence is that the profile matches the suspect.

Professor Jamieson goes on:

While the DNA of the last person to touch the item may, or may not, be on the item, the DNA of others who may or who may not have touched the item may also be present. There is no reliable way of ascribing a particular profile to a particular time.

As to whether the originating DNA was in fact semen and it ocurred as a result of sexual intercourse between Storie and Hanratty, it would be imprudent not to accept the Caddy review (that said that LCN was 'robust' and 'fit for purpose') of 2008 when they said that in all generality:

As the results were obtained from LCN it is inappropriate to comment upon the cellular material from which the DNA arose or the activity by which the DNA was transferred.

Yet the prosecution in Hanratty insisted upon this very argument. For those who have not been keeping up with the debate, the Caddy review which investigated the reliability of LCN produced the above quote with regard to the source and distribution of cellular material,

If any doubts linger Dr Budowle states that:

Because the analysis [LCN] yields results from very minute samples, the tissue source of the DNA cannot currently be inferred.

The Hanratty is guilty because the DNA proves it brigade will I am sure be interested to hear that LCN will shortly be up against a test case in London which includes evidence from Dr Budowle and other respected international Forensic DNA experts. This appeal case will hear about the short comings of this technique as being nothing more than an investigative tool.

Read about it here

http://www.gazettelive.co.uk/news/teesside-news/2009/08/31/dna-on-trial-in-peter-hoe-murder-appeal-84229-24571596/

Then I am sure that a proper debate will open up about the culpability of James Hanrattry without the safety net of LCN DNA.

Thnx
Steve

References

http://www.theforensicinstitute.com/PDF/Continuity%20and%20contamination.pdf

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=2702736

[Limehouse]

Hello Steve,

Welcome back. An awesome post and one that makes Hanratty's corner worth fighting once again!

A thousand thanks for that.

[caz]

Then were did the judges come up with the DNA of Storie and that alleged of Gregsten that is in the appeal ruling. We go from 3 profiles (at appeal) to only one by the BBC. There is a serious contradiction here.

I doubt that, Steve. Some things are not considered necessary to spell out and I think it's safe to assume here that Roger Mann simply meant that only one profile was found that could have belonged to the rapist. Since the other two profiles could be accounted for innocently they had no relevance to the rather crucial point that was being made, ie that the only way to make Hanratty innocent was to swallow a huge coincidence involving his DNA being transferred to the knicker fragment during a terribly unlucky contamination event and clinging on steadfastly for the next 40 years, while in another cruel twist of fate all the rapist's semen succeeded in going AWOL.

I still haven't heard a simple, believable explanation for how those specific results could have been obtained - much less accepted - if the rapist was anyone other than Hanratty. How complicated and risky would it have been for a team of high profile forensic conspirators to rig the DNA evidence in line with the original verdict? And is this really what anyone thinks happened? Or would you at least concede that the scientists involved must have sincerely believed they got it right, beyond any reasonable doubt?

Finally, how can the results be used to suggest Hanratty's innocence?

Love,

Caz
X

[Limehouse]

Hi Caz, Steve, everybody,

I don't think it is being suggested that the scientists falsified the results. I am no scientist (far, far from it) but what I understood Steve eas suggesting was that the methods of testing could be questioned, given the age of the samples and other factors concerning the passage of time.

I read somewhere (and I think Vic confirmed it) that even a tiny cell from Hanratty, deposited on a sample, would be magnified many, many times using this DNA testing method.

Although the samples MAY (and we do not know for sure) have not been stored together, if the person who cut the sample from the knickers had, wearing his/her lab coat, previously handled Hanratty's garments or hankerchief, contamination IS possible because it would only have taken a tiny spec of Hanratty's DNA to produce a considerable result on the knicker fragment.

When people say - there is no other DNA profile present on the knicker sample, (ie no third person, the killer) the same can be said for the inside of the car. Not a spec of Hanratty or any other third person was found. not a hair, a fibre, a skin cell, a drop of fluid - nothing.

[NickB]

But the inside of the car was not subject to modern scientific analysis.

[Victor]

I read somewhere (and I think Vic confirmed it) that even a tiny cell from Hanratty, deposited on a sample, would be magnified many, many times using this DNA testing method.

Hi Julie,
I think it's 7 cells, which is still a microscopic fragment.

As for Jamieson and Budowle and their ultra-pessimistic viewpoint, they need to take their own advice and treat it on a case-by-case basis, and give a relevent observation to the A6 results rather than the generalised naysaying that SteveS quoted.

KR,
Vic.

[larue]

And you never know, one day somebody might post up a convincing counter-argument which might make me change my mind! Unlikely, but possible!

hehehehehehe and if they did you would'nt believe them anyway...


stay cool

[caz]

I don't think it is being suggested that the scientists falsified the results.

Well I'm relieved to hear it. But I could have sworn that posters in the past have swung wildly between incompetence and downright dishonesty in their attempts to explain how the DNA evidence must have been bungled and just plain wrong.

Although the samples MAY (and we do not know for sure) have not been stored together, if the person who cut the sample from the knickers had, wearing his/her lab coat, previously handled Hanratty's garments or hankerchief, contamination IS possible because it would only have taken a tiny spec of Hanratty's DNA to produce a considerable result on the knicker fragment.

But no other profiles showed up so we have to presume that nobody mishandled the evidence to the extent of accidentally transferring their own, or anyone else's DNA in addition to Hanratty's onto the knicker fragment. And you still have the riddle of the vanishing semen stains that were deposited on those knickers by whoever raped and shot Valerie. If they belonged to Hanratty they didn't vanish - no riddle to solve.

The car is irrelevant. The hankie and knickers had Hanratty's 40-year old DNA on them and no other potential suspect's. They are your raw materials and they cannot, by any stretch of alchemy or the imagination, be made into a silk purse with Alphon's name in it.

Love,

Caz
X

[babybird67]

hi larue

hehehehehehe and if they did you would'nt believe them anyway...


stay cool

well how can anyone say, when there hasnt been a convincing argument forthcoming so far?

[babybird67]

hi Limehouse

I read somewhere (and I think Vic confirmed it) that even a tiny cell from Hanratty, deposited on a sample, would be magnified many, many times using this DNA testing method.

If this is true this only underlines how absolutely astounding it would be, given the argument that the samples were allegedly not stored correctly and handled by a number of people at the trial, that only Hanratty's DNA appears to have contaminated the exhibits. It would also not explain how the semen stains from which DNA was extracted were showing on the knickers in a distribution typical of one in which sex had taken place (i.e., not attributable to contamination). From what i have read, the samples were stored within protective covering, which is why contamination did not occur, as shown by the fact that no other DNA profiles other than VS's. MG's and JH's were detectable.

Although the samples MAY (and we do not know for sure) have not been stored together, if the person who cut the sample from the knickers had, wearing his/her lab coat, previously handled Hanratty's garments or hankerchief, contamination IS possible because it would only have taken a tiny spec of Hanratty's DNA to produce a considerable result on the knicker fragment.

And yet none of the scientist's DNA at all, even though a tiny tiny speck would have been enough to contaminate?

When people say - there is no other DNA profile present on the knicker sample, (ie no third person, the killer) the same can be said for the inside of the car. Not a spec of Hanratty or any other third person was found. not a hair, a fibre, a skin cell, a drop of fluid - nothing.

And yet we know someone was in that car, because a man was murdered in it and a woman raped...i don't understand the logic of pointing this out. Lack of forensic evidence in the car is evidence of Hanratty's innocence? Lack of forensic evidence in the car must therefore, logically, exonerate everyone else mustn't it... yet someone was guilty.

[Graham]

Although I have qualifications in chemistry, and trained as an industrial chemist in the distant days when such existed, I know diddley about biochemisty and can only just get my head around DNA. I'm more than happy to leave deep discussions about DNA to those who know more about it than I do, but in all the debate about the accuracy of the A6 DNA I don't think anything thus far has convinced me that the tests were anything but reliable.
For the nth time, I ask: if JH wasn't the rapist of VS, then who was? Alphon's DNA wasn't on any exhibit tested, and it is accepted that the police located him in 2003 to take a sample of his DNA. I could never figure out how the "Alphonites" can place him in the car if his DNA wasn't on the knickers.

And regarding the car, does anyone know if the forensic tests carried out on it after it was found were ever published in detail? I'd have thought that, in pre-DNA days, if the police for whatever reason wanted to stitch-up JH, then claiming to have found some kind of forensic link between him and the car would have been the easiest route. I can't see how clothing fibre [I]wasn't[I] found, and can only assume that any fibre that might have been found couldn't be matched to any clothing the police associated with JH. Maybe (with reference to a long-ago post of mine) they also perhaps found traces of mud or soil from the field, but were unable to match it with anything found on any shoes they associated with JH. But if there was no direct, tangible link in the car to JH, then there certainly wasn't any to Alphon or to anyone else who might have been suspected of the A6 Crime.

Cheers,

Graham

[Limehouse]

The fact that no forensic evidence of the killer (neither Hanratty, Alphon or anyone else) was found in the car is interesting in terms of the fact that if Hanratty wasn't in the car, neither could there be found any evidence that someone else was.

With regard to none of the scientist's DNA being found on the fragments (babybird's point) - well they were not testing for the scientists DNA and no doubt of they were, something could have been found.

In terms of the distribution of the semen stains - we know that Gregten's semen was also on the knickers - didn't his seamen make a similar distribution? Did both men manage to 'aim' in different places? (Sorry to be so crass) and couldn't it be argued that the contamination produced a clear Hanratty profile within that area but probably not exactly matching it?

I am no scientist, that much is clear, but there are scientists out there who seriously doubt the validity of this method of testing and, as SteveS points out, there is going to be a challenge to this method shortly so perhaps the debate may change direction when the results of that case are tested.

[Victor]

Hi Julie,

The fact that no forensic evidence of the killer (neither Hanratty, Alphon or anyone else) was found in the car is interesting in terms of the fact that if Hanratty wasn't in the car, neither could there be found any evidence that someone else was.

I don't get your point here, there must be some forensic evidence from the car, for example, we get the "undoubtedly bloodstained" comment about the killers clothes indicating that they did find confirmation that Gregsten was shot in the car. I believe some cartridge cases were found in the footwell too.

With regard to none of the scientist's DNA being found on the fragments (babybird's point) - well they were not testing for the scientists DNA and no doubt of they were, something could have been found.

I'm sorry, that doesn't make sense. With DNA testing you get a profile of all the DNA on the sample, and then have to interpret it based on the results. If you think of it in terms of colours, then if you get a "green" result it would be blue from one person and yellow from another, but you can't seperate them out into the original colours. If the scientists DNA was there, then the overall result would be a slightly different shade.

KR,
Vic.

[SteveS]

Hi all
There has been some mention of identification evidence in this case recently.

Jen (Babybird67) has said that:

...he was identified by the only living witness to the crime, who was raped by him, and ought to know who it was who stole her life away;

he was identified in the murder car by TWO other independent witnesses, who picked him from a line-up;...

Lets leave Ms Stories identification for a while and concentrate on the 2 Redbridge witnesses for now.

The bald facts of the case are that the identification of Mr Skillett and Mr Trower are contradicted by those of, respectively, Mr Blackhall and Mr Hogan. Contrary to what Jen has said not one of the four Redbridge witnesses identified the car by its registration number.

Mr Blackhall was in the offside (passenger) seat from Mr Skillet and had a much better view of the driver of the alleged murder vehicle than that of Mr Skillet. In fact Mr Blackhall reported the incident that alerted the police to the vehicle being in Redbridge that morning. He picked out the car by its 3 red stripes on the rear bumper a torn piece of green material. Mr Blackhall was also insistent that Hanratty was not the driver.

Mr Skilett was more reticent in coming forward and when asked by Mr Sherrard, at trial, of his testimony at the Ampthill hearing:

Mr Sherrard: "I agree if Mr. Blackhall picked somebody else out then one or other of us might be making a mistake, or both of us." Of course, because we are are all human and think we are right about these things, however difficult they may be, one has one's own reasons for feeling convinced that one is right?
Mr Skillett: That is right.

Mr Trower in contrast was completely contadicted by the evidence of Mr Hogan.

Mr Trower said that he had seen Hanratty driving the Morris car but when cross examined by Mr Sherrard stated that:

Mr Sherrard: Then the incident goes out of your mind, certainly for 24 hours?
Mr Trower: I did not know anything about it.
Sherrard: When the police first mentioned it to you, it did not mean anything to you?
Trower: It did not dawn on me at all.
Sherrard: Then Paddy Hogan said something and you go and see the police again?
Trower: Yes.
Sherrard: What it really comes to, as I understand it, is that, having seen somebody for a couple of seconds in those circumstances, which I suggest were not very clear and good, you can then six weeks later just go up to someone in a second and say, "That is the man."
Trower: Yes

Mr Hogan though was adamant that the Morris car went past 15 minutes before Mr Trower had arrived to pick him up, he (Mr Hogan) had seen the very same car later that evening in Avondale Crescent whilst under police examination. By whatever means Mr Swanwick tried to shake Mr Hogan from his story, Mr Hogan was resolute.

It should be noted and understood that Messrs Trower and Skillett did not come forward independently but were pre-empted by Messrs Blackhall and Hogan.

To be fair to both sets of these contradictory identification evidence it would probably be best to set both aside rather than just pick favourites. I am also not completely convinced that the non-disclosure of the mileage by DS Acott was as the judges at appeal described the high water mark of non-disclosure.

As for Ms Stories evidence it should be pertinent to accept what Mr Sherrard said: The witness may be perfectly honest, absolutely convinced that he or she has identified the right man or woman and you're not going to be able to cross-examine them to show that they're lying "cos they're not lying, they're telling the truth as they see it.

I beleive that the high water mark of non-disclosure was that that surrounded the statements of Ms Storie that the defence were not party to and therefore the jury did not hear.

It is plain that Ms Stories reliability as a witness was key to James Hanratty's conviction.

Now lets examine the Rhyl alibi witnesses:

Jen has also said recently that:

Nevertheless views have been expressed on this thread accusing the woman of lying; this may be the view of some posters, but then the question needs to be asked, why would the OTHER independent witnesses who placed Hanratty in the murder car that morning be lying? Because they were independent of eachother, i would find it exceptionally implausible that both of them were either lying or mistaken about the man they saw in that car. VS's identification evidence was therefore only a third of that which the jury heard which placed JH either at the scene of the crime or in the murder car later that same day.

If you don't think Trower and Skillet were lying, do you think they were both, independently, mistaken about who they saw? Combined with eachother's evidence, and that of VS's, the defence has to rely on three honest witnesses all being mistaken about seeing who they saw...is that plausible?

As i have said, add these identifications together with all the other evidence and you get a bigger picture, one which points in one direction only, in my opinion, and that is to James Hanratty's guilt, however unpalatable that may be to some.

(my bold type)

Suppose one was to give the same latitude to the Rhyl witnesses as Jen has given to Messrs Skillet and Trower? Would the following people plausibly lie independently and was it plausible for them to lie collectively:

Mrs Walker
Mrs Vincent
Mrs Jones
Mrs Harris
Mr Larman
Mr Dutton

James Hanratty gave the following details of his Rhyl alibi before inquiries began.

Enquired 5 or 6 times for bed and breakfast, being August it was hard to find anywhere.

By the time he found somewhere it was dark after travelling in and out through other streets.

The woman who put him up was about 50, average built, wearing glasses and had greyish hair.

Coat rack in the hallway along with a green plant in a bowl.

A green bath in the top part of the house.

Paid 25 shillings for 2 nights and no register to sign.

Trains heard, but not seen from the room.

Small courtyard at rear.

These persons above actually verified James Hanratty's alibi by coming forward, independently, and stating that they had, in fact, had an encounter with someone who was or who fitted the description of James Hanratty on the 2 days that these 6 people were collectively in Rhyl, AT THAT TIME AND NO OTHER and that that was when Hanratty said he was there.

Mrs Walker was sure of the date due to a family event on the Friday of the same week.
Mrs Vincent supports the story given by Mrs Walker.
Mrs Jones and Mrs Harris have never waivered that it was Hanratty who stayed with them on the 2 days that week.
Mr Larman and Mrs Walker were perhaps a little out with timing but to all intents and purposes an hour is not too wide of the mark when trying to remember, to them insignificant, events some 6 months previously. The same goes for Hanratty and his recollection of the various travel times.
Mr Dutton, the Kinmel Bay chicken farmer, also verified the date (by his bank book) he was approached and offered a watch for sale, mentioned by Hanratty. It was the only day he was in Rhyl that summer, the last deposit he made to his bank being in the spring.

In fact Mrs Walker narrowed her timing of the encounter with Hanratty with another statement that read, ...as the street lights were coming on...

Further, both Mrs Walker and Mr Larman spoke of the mans hair as being not quite natural, streaky or bronzed, exactly as James Hanratty's would have looked at the time. Most talked of him not having any luggage.

Another Rhyl witness, Mrs Betty Davies, incidently shoots down the proposal that Hanratty must have been at Ingledene in July by the fact that she supports both Mrs Walker and Mrs Vincent account and by stating that she was in Prestatyn Hospital and gave birth on 20th July and left the hospital on 28th. The baby died on the 31st July.

We also have Terry Evans' evidence although Hanratty never met him in Rhyl on those 2 days. Hanratty said that he had been looking for Evans and Evan's black cab was not at the fairground as Hanratty stated. And Evans further backs up Hanratty's alibi by acknowleding his car had been moved from the spot when Hantatty first saw it in late July 1961 at the funfair.

The evidence of Mrs Dinwoodie, whose testimony was unshakeable, was albeit again tinged with the fundamental problems of eye witness indentification, that of timing. The prosecution was in all sorts of problems dealing with her testimony.

All of the witnesses at trial, bar Valerie Storie were not expected to remember a chance encounter. They were not supposed to see someone and think, I'll remember that face and the time, it might come in useful at some future point. These were just ordinary people, as fallible as you and me, going about their everyday lives. I am reminded of the scene from 12 Angry Men where Henry Fonda challanges E G Marshall to name the films he saw only a few days ago but struggles to do so as a good example of this fact, although in art form. Who, in all honesty, could remember an event, in miniscule detail and timing, put to then randomly some time after its occurrence?

If one is going to weigh the identification evidence for one side or the other then I would plump for Hanratty's alibi as being, on the whole more reliable and substantiated and as being the more realistic.

For if as Jen says of Ms Storie ...ought to know who it was who stole her life away..., why would those people in Rhyl come forward to give evidence to substantiate a potential murderer and rapists alibi that could allow him to go free? For a bit of publicity and their 15 minutes of fame? I think that anyone who truly believes that should have a long look in the mirror and re-evaluate their tenuous connection to the human race. We are only human and I am sure that if Hanratty was at Dorney Reach that evening, and I had seen him, I would have come forward to say so. Many others in Rhyl probably did see Hanratty but were put off, not by Warhols philosophy but by just not wanting to get involved. Most of us have been in a similar position, yet not perhaps with such catastrophic consequences.

It must be reiterated that the core of these people of Rhyl did not come along years later but were making statements to the fact whilst Hanratty's trial was still in progress and yet some of these names and statements were withheld for years.

But that is why we good people are here, today, debating this case. Not because of what we want to be true but because of what seems to be false, to us, either way. We all know what has been given in evidence and that has been written about the case.

I for certain have a reasonable doubt as to Hanratty's guilt based on all the evidence publicly available.

As Lord Russell said in his fine book on the case, To anyone who has had the opportunity to read the complete transcript of the evidence and give long and careful consideration to the case in all its aspects the conclusion is almost inescapible that the verdict should have been one of not guilty.

Thnx
Steve

References

Russell 1965
Foot 1988
Woffinden 1997
BBC Horizon 2002