a6 murder

[Victor]

You are surely not claiming that just because a group of people do not accept the DNA findings in one case - they will automatically apply the same reasoning to all cases? Even those cases that have not even been before the courts?

Hi Julie,

But that is exactly what Derrick and others are suggesting. They do not accept the results in the Mr E case (or Colin Stagg, &tc) and therefore we should not accept the results in the Hanratty case. I'm glad you accept the fallacy of this argument.

Before the DNA results were known - there were many reasons to doubt the conviction. Those doubts remain despite the DNA.

Before the DNA there were doubts, which the DNA result should have removed - and for most people it has (see the Poll thread)

Whether the substances were misidentified or misinterpreted the result was the same - a man imprisoned - but in Hanratty's case and man hanged by his neck until it broke.

Misidentified - the result was wrong.
Misinterpretted - the result was correct, but the conclusions reached from that result were wrong.

In Mr E's case (from the link Derrick posted) the father's DNA was correctly identified as being present but the explanation given was wrong. Of course this particular case will be complicated because the daughter's DNA profile will match the father's by at least 50%.

KR,
Vic.

[Graham]

Superbly put, Ron, especially the very first and last paragraphs, but all your points are eminently logical, at least to me.

No-one would deny the right for anyone to debate the DNA evidence in the A6 Case, but until an independent, professional, qualified, forensic scientist is able to prove that the DNA analysis in the Hanratty Case is suspect, I will continue to accept the results. It seems to me to be pointless forever raising other criminal cases in which DNA has been used.

Graham

[Tony]

I am most reluctant to interrupt the flow of argument emanating from the distinguished scientists that comprise the Hanratty Appreciation Society but I feel constrained to do so and to make the following observations.

When the DNA tests were conducted they were done so under the supervision of at least two boffins (forensic scientists) appointed by the Defence Solicitors acting for the Hanratty family. The first, Doc Pat Lincoln, even went on camera to state that he was optimistic that the DNA tests would be conclusive as to the identity of the murderer/rapist. Doc Lincoln did not do the appeal and in his stead we found Doc Evison giving evidence for the Defence in Jim's (second) appeal.

Therefore:

1. At no stage has any boffin acting for Hanratty argued that the tests were carried out negligently or improperly.

2. No forensic scientist, who has seen the test results and had access to information regarding the test processes, has stated that Jim's DNA was not detected and properly identified.

3. It has been argued and accepted by the Court of Appeal that there was a possible contamination of the exhibit,

4. If Jim's DNA is present as a contaminant then where is the rapist's DNA? Bear in mind that the exhibit had been tested for blood grouping and given a positive blood group O before Hanratty came on the scene.


If a further appeal is to be mounted, and in this regard I do not think that it is seriously being considered, at least not to the extent of anyone putting any money towards the cause, then the vanishing DNA of the rapist will have to be addressed. For this another forensic scientist will have to state how this could have occurred. Has such a scientist been instructed? I think not. On the recent Radio 4 prog about Jim's next appeal a charming lady boffin wheeled out, but she admitted that she had not seen the test results. Furthermore, Jim's Solicitor when interviewed did not say he had further forensic evidence.

I am sorry to have to tell it like it is, but I suspect that the facts will not get in the way of the flights of fantasy which have been expressed above and we can look forward to many more tales of homozygotes, heterozygotes, mairzy doats, dozy doats and liddle lamzy divey, all delivered with the authority of someone who does not know what he is talking about.

Hello Ron,

I don’t know if your post refers directly to me or not. If it does I can only say the following:

I never knew James Hanratty. From what I read about his activities as a housebreaker and car thief he would be someone that I would steer well clear of.
So I am most certainly not part of any Appreciation Society that you believe to exist.

You are correct I know nothing at all about DNA. Absolutely nothing whatsoever. But I do have the ability to read.

The other day I read an article that stated that forensic scientists whilst looking for the DNA of Colin Stagg on Rachel Nickell had missed the DNA that was present from the real murderer Robert Napper.
Following from this The Association of Chief Police Officers wrote to all police forces asking them to carry out a review of all serious crime cases.

Now, as I say I do not possess your expertise in these matters but maybe you could help me. What is the difference in the case of Stagg and Hanratty?

You shall have to make allowances here for me for although I am not a Bedfordshire dimwit as you believe people from Bedford to be I am from Derbyshire and here we are: “Derbyshire born, Derbyshire bred: strong in th’arm and thick in yead”

Thanks Ron.

Tony.

[RonIpstone]

I am most reluctant to interrupt the flow of argument emanating from the distinguished scientists that comprise the Hanratty Appreciation Society but I feel constrained to do so and to make the following observations.

When the DNA tests were conducted they were done so under the supervision of at least two boffins (forensic scientists) appointed by the Defence Solicitors acting for the Hanratty family. The first, Doc Pat Lincoln, even went on camera to state that he was optimistic that the DNA tests would be conclusive as to the identity of the murderer/rapist. Doc Lincoln did not do the appeal and in his stead we found Doc Evison giving evidence for the Defence in Jim's (second) appeal.

Therefore:

1. At no stage has any boffin acting for Hanratty argued that the tests were carried out negligently or improperly.

2. No forensic scientist, who has seen the test results and had access to information regarding the test processes, has stated that Jim's DNA was not detected and properly identified.

3. It has been argued and accepted by the Court of Appeal that there was a possible contamination of the exhibit,

4. If Jim's DNA is present as a contaminant then where is the rapist's DNA? Bear in mind that the exhibit had been tested for blood grouping and given a positive blood group O before Hanratty came on the scene.


If a further appeal is to be mounted, and in this regard I do not think that it is seriously being considered, at least not to the extent of anyone putting any money towards the cause, then the vanishing DNA of the rapist will have to be addressed. For this another forensic scientist will have to state how this could have occurred. Has such a scientist been instructed? I think not. On the recent Radio 4 prog about Jim's next appeal a charming lady boffin wheeled out, but she admitted that she had not seen the test results. Furthermore, Jim's Solicitor when interviewed did not say he had further forensic evidence.

I am sorry to have to tell it like it is, but I suspect that the facts will not get in the way of the flights of fantasy which have been expressed above and we can look forward to many more tales of homozygotes, heterozygotes, mairzy doats, dozy doats and liddle lamzy divey, all delivered with the authority of someone who does not know what he is talking about.

[Limehouse]

Hi Tony

Thanks for getting back to me. Wow! So much for the 'value' of 'conclusive' DNA tests - not much value of they are not even conducted properly!

My suspicion is that the scientists have so much faith in the science that they become careless and complacent.

The Forensic Science Service is based in Huntingdon - a town about 20 miles down the A1 from my home in Peterborough. They are being disbanded as part of the coalition's plan to cut the 'deficit'.

Keep posting Tony.

Julie

[Tony]

Hi Tony

Nice to see you posting again.

Do you happen to know if the DNA tests in the Nickell case were of the LCN type?

Julie

Hello Julie,

Yes the tests were LCN and this is the outcome:

Forensic scientists, carrying out a review of the case in 2001, made an appalling blunder. They failed to test the tiny DNA sample found on Rachel’s body; had they done so they would have matched it to Napper’s, which by that time was on the database.

This wasn’t the only potential mistake by the Forensic Science Service:

The Times: February 22, 2007:

Hundreds of murderers, rapists and other serious criminals may have escaped prosecution because forensic scientists failed to test properly for DNA evidence for five years. More than 2,000 cases are being urgently reviewed — including that of Rachel Nickell, the former model murdered on Wimbledon Common — after the Forensic Science Service admitted that it might have missed crucial evidence.
The service, which carries out most DNA tests for police forces in England and Wales, expects to recover DNA in at least 200 cases where it had said that none existed.
The Times has learnt that chief constables believe that the total could be higher. The failure involves the processing between 2000 and 2005 of “low-copy-number” tests, used to identify microscopic quantities of DNA.
The Association of Chief Police Officers wrote to all police forces yesterday asking them to carry out a review of their serious crime cases.

Tony.

[Derrick]

Good Evening to you, Limehouse,

Well it would seem that we all have our opinions on the mystical DNA. Personally I don’t know what it looks like, what colour it is or anything else about it. Like you I have to rely on ‘experts’ to tell me all about it and when they have done I am still no wiser.

Now here is a senior police officer’s opinion of this strange DNA stuff.

Colin Stagg was charged with the Rachel Nickell murder in 1993 and when the judge correctly refused to allow the entrapment evidence the police offered no further evidence and the case was thrown out. Colin Stagg was persecuted for years and the police and press stated quite openly that he had got away with murder. His life was a misery; Paul Foot was a staunch supporter of Stagg and believed him to be innocent.

DNA on Rachel Nickell’s underwear was missed in 1993 but when the case was reviewed 10 years later the DNA of Robert Napper was found on her underwear.
I do not know who conducted those first bungled tests. Perhaps someone on here might know.

Colin Stagg and his solicitor begged and pleaded with the police to do a DNA test on Colin Stagg when the DNA was first found. The police refused.
Eventually Robert Napper pleaded guilty to the murder in 2007 and that’s the last we should hear of him.

While Colin Stagg waiting for official confirmation that the DNA was from Napper the Chief Investigating Officer, Keith Pedder, had this to say:

“After this length of time there is always a chance that the integrity of the exhibit, on which it was found, has been compromised
“You have to satisfy yourselves, that the golden thread of continuity has not been broken. I’m unsure whether that can be safely said here, in light of the gigantic advances made in respect of the sensitivity of the DNA science that is now available.
“There were three post mortems carried out on Rachel and each time the case was reviewed her clothing would have been re-examined and been open to contamination.
“The same applies when the sample is matched against that of the new suspect. All these things are carried out in the same lab and it is always possible for secondary transfer to occur”

As Jimmy used to say: “It’s a funny old game.”

Tony.

Hi Tony
Your brilliant research from the Stagg case shows how much that CIO's these days are concerned with the integrity of crime samples and it's reliablity as trial evidence.

The Nickell case is from 1993. Hanratty from 1961. The CA in 2002 didn't have a clue what had happened to the exhibits at times. The so called "golden thread" was obviously broken in this case. Plus Grant examined, first Hanratty's green suit then the next day VS's knickers. Same lab, ergo contamination hazard (in 1961).

Following on from Julie said, come back and post some more.

Derrick

[Derrick]

Why does Vic have to demonstrate that when the experts conducting the tests already have?

For the very simple reason sweetheart that Victor said;

results clearly show Hanratty left his semen on Valerie's underwear when he raped her

The actual results are unknown to anyone here so Victor must support his opinion with solid evidence as source tissue is unknowable from DNA testing.

Anybody can see that! Why can't you?

PS maybe you should start sugaring the opposition as your tagline says!

[Limehouse]

Good Evening to you, Limehouse,

Well it would seem that we all have our opinions on the mystical DNA. Personally I don’t know what it looks like, what colour it is or anything else about it. Like you I have to rely on ‘experts’ to tell me all about it and when they have done I am still no wiser.

Now here is a senior police officer’s opinion of this strange DNA stuff.

Colin Stagg was charged with the Rachel Nickell murder in 1993 and when the judge correctly refused to allow the entrapment evidence the police offered no further evidence and the case was thrown out. Colin Stagg was persecuted for years and the police and press stated quite openly that he had got away with murder. His life was a misery; Paul Foot was a staunch supporter of Stagg and believed him to be innocent.

DNA on Rachel Nickell’s underwear was missed in 1993 but when the case was reviewed 10 years later the DNA of Robert Napper was found on her underwear.
I do not know who conducted those first bungled tests. Perhaps someone on here might know.

Colin Stagg and his solicitor begged and pleaded with the police to do a DNA test on Colin Stagg when the DNA was first found. The police refused.
Eventually Robert Napper pleaded guilty to the murder in 2007 and that’s the last we should hear of him.

While Colin Stagg waiting for official confirmation that the DNA was from Napper the Chief Investigating Officer, Keith Pedder, had this to say:

“After this length of time there is always a chance that the integrity of the exhibit, on which it was found, has been compromised
“You have to satisfy yourselves, that the golden thread of continuity has not been broken. I’m unsure whether that can be safely said here, in light of the gigantic advances made in respect of the sensitivity of the DNA science that is now available.
“There were three post mortems carried out on Rachel and each time the case was reviewed her clothing would have been re-examined and been open to contamination.
“The same applies when the sample is matched against that of the new suspect. All these things are carried out in the same lab and it is always possible for secondary transfer to occur”

As Jimmy used to say: “It’s a funny old game.”

Tony.

Hi Tony

Nice to see you posting again.

Do you happen to know if the DNA tests in the Nickell case were of the LCN type?

Julie

[Tony]

As there has not been a trial in the Jo Yate's case - any DNA evidence that might inciminate her killer has not yet been discussed and therefore not yet challenged. You are surely not claiming that just because a group of people do not accept the DNA findings in one case - they will automatically apply the same reasoning to all cases? Even those cases that have not even been before the courts?

Hanratty is ONE case that I have doubts about. ONE. Before the DNA results were known - there were many reasons to doubt the conviction. Those doubts remain despite the DNA. You may be fully convinced that the case is proven and therefore you think that justice has been done. I am not fully convinced. That does not mean I do not uphold justice. It means that in THIS CASE - I am not fully convinced that justice was done.

I think it IS valid to question the DNA and Derrick's example highlights why it is valid to question DNA findings in some cases. Whether the substances were misidentified or misinterpreted the result was the same - a man imprisoned - but in Hanratty's case and man hanged by his neck until it broke.

Good Evening to you, Limehouse,

Well it would seem that we all have our opinions on the mystical DNA. Personally I don’t know what it looks like, what colour it is or anything else about it. Like you I have to rely on ‘experts’ to tell me all about it and when they have done I am still no wiser.

Now here is a senior police officer’s opinion of this strange DNA stuff.

Colin Stagg was charged with the Rachel Nickell murder in 1993 and when the judge correctly refused to allow the entrapment evidence the police offered no further evidence and the case was thrown out. Colin Stagg was persecuted for years and the police and press stated quite openly that he had got away with murder. His life was a misery; Paul Foot was a staunch supporter of Stagg and believed him to be innocent.

DNA on Rachel Nickell’s underwear was missed in 1993 but when the case was reviewed 10 years later the DNA of Robert Napper was found on her underwear.
I do not know who conducted those first bungled tests. Perhaps someone on here might know.

Colin Stagg and his solicitor begged and pleaded with the police to do a DNA test on Colin Stagg when the DNA was first found. The police refused.
Eventually Robert Napper pleaded guilty to the murder in 2007 and that’s the last we should hear of him.

While Colin Stagg waiting for official confirmation that the DNA was from Napper the Chief Investigating Officer, Keith Pedder, had this to say:

“After this length of time there is always a chance that the integrity of the exhibit, on which it was found, has been compromised
“You have to satisfy yourselves, that the golden thread of continuity has not been broken. I’m unsure whether that can be safely said here, in light of the gigantic advances made in respect of the sensitivity of the DNA science that is now available.
“There were three post mortems carried out on Rachel and each time the case was reviewed her clothing would have been re-examined and been open to contamination.
“The same applies when the sample is matched against that of the new suspect. All these things are carried out in the same lab and it is always possible for secondary transfer to occur”

As Jimmy used to say: “It’s a funny old game.”

Tony.

[Derrick]

Erm.. They weren't "identified incorrectly", they were misinterpreted.

Erm... how do you know for sure what happened in "Mr E's" case?

A single peak at one loci could be incorrectly identified as being a heterozygote and reported as having a coupled fail. Whereas it could also be incorrectly identified as a Homozygote at that loci.

To compare, an allele may be misinterpreted as being a real allele when in fact it could be a result of pull up because too much original template was used in the test or a stochastic effect from the opposite of having a low amount of starting template (LCN).

[Limehouse]

I don't think so.



Yes I did, because the results of the Hanratty case are so conclusive that if they can be questioned, any can be questioned, ergo it's not worth doing any DNA tests whatsoever.



And?



As I think Vic has pointed out, they weren't misidentified, they were misinterpreted. There were innocent explanations for that DNA being there, and alternative sources of it. Neither of those applies in the Hanratty case. It isn't valid to question the Hanratty DNA and hasn't been for some time. Worryingly, that doesn't stop people undermining justice and carrying on doing it though. Hence my Jo parallel.

As there has not been a trial in the Jo Yate's case - any DNA evidence that might inciminate her killer has not yet been discussed and therefore not yet challenged. You are surely not claiming that just because a group of people do not accept the DNA findings in one case - they will automatically apply the same reasoning to all cases? Even those cases that have not even been before the courts?

Hanratty is ONE case that I have doubts about. ONE. Before the DNA results were known - there were many reasons to doubt the conviction. Those doubts remain despite the DNA. You may be fully convinced that the case is proven and therefore you think that justice has been done. I am not fully convinced. That does not mean I do not uphold justice. It means that in THIS CASE - I am not fully convinced that justice was done.

I think it IS valid to question the DNA and Derrick's example highlights why it is valid to question DNA findings in some cases. Whether the substances were misidentified or misinterpreted the result was the same - a man imprisoned - but in Hanratty's case and man hanged by his neck until it broke.

[babybird67]

It's completely different.

I don't think so.

You mentioned the case in Bristol (Jo Yates) suggested that they might as well not do DNA as people would argue it is valueless but you were not basing your argument on a tried and tested case. You were just speculating on what people's reactions might be.

Yes I did, because the results of the Hanratty case are so conclusive that if they can be questioned, any can be questioned, ergo it's not worth doing any DNA tests whatsoever.

The DNA on the Hanratty/Storie samples were carried out decades after the crime and decades after a trial and court case that was open to criticism.

And?

The case example posted by Derrick was an attempt to show how even relatively fresh samples of DNA can be isolated and identified incorrectly. Therefore - it is valid to question the Hanratty/Storie analysis.

As I think Vic has pointed out, they weren't misidentified, they were misinterpreted. There were innocent explanations for that DNA being there, and alternative sources of it. Neither of those applies in the Hanratty case. It isn't valid to question the Hanratty DNA and hasn't been for some time. Worryingly, that doesn't stop people undermining justice and carrying on doing it though. Hence my Jo parallel.

[Victor]

I wonder if Woffinden is correct...

Oh no Nick, not something else that Woffinden has got wrong!

KR,
Vic.

[NickB]

I wonder if Woffinden is correct that Hanratty claims to have:
a) looked for Evans on the Tuesday night before looking for accommodation;
and
b) visited the fairground on the Wednesday.

The 2002 Appeal, in points 200 and 66 respectively, appears to say that he looked for accommodation upon arrival and then “spent the following day trying to find John but did not go to the fairground”.

In all accounts he responds to the question; “Why didn’t you go to the fairground?”. Of course if he went there on the Wednesday night the question could still have been asked with ‘until the last moment’ on the end.