a6 murder

[Limehouse]

Well, that's telling me.

Personally, I thought the 'reverse scenario' comment was rather insulting because it was attributing reactions to a situation that has not arisen and will not arise. However, perhaps it was not intended as a personal slur.

[caz]

Hi Limehouse,

Are you honestly suggesting that if the DNA evidence had implicated Alphon (or someone else) but not Hanratty, anyone arguing for the latter's innocence would still have rejected the result, on the grounds that the science at the time was inherently unreliable?

Those who insist that the DNA findings are unreliable, invalid, inconclusive or bungled could at least have the good grace to concede that if they are right, this would have applied whatever the outcome. But nobody does concede that. So all I'm hearing is the circular argument that the DNA evidence must be suspect because it fingered Hanratty, whose original conviction was unsafe/wrong.

Fight Hanratty's corner by all means, but fight fair or face your critics.

Love,

Caz
X

[burkhilly]

Someone fanastic debate going on, wish I could join in, but I'm not as articulate nor as knowledgeable as some. At the moment I'm back sitting on the fence re JH's guilt!

Keep it up everyone.

[Limehouse]

Hi Limehouse,

Are you honestly suggesting that if the DNA evidence had implicated Alphon (or someone else) but not Hanratty, anyone arguing for the latter's innocence would still have rejected the result, on the grounds that the science at the time was inherently unreliable?

Those who insist that the DNA findings are unreliable, invalid, inconclusive or bungled could at least have the good grace to concede that if they are right, this would have applied whatever the outcome. But nobody does concede that. So all I'm hearing is the circular argument that the DNA evidence must be suspect because it fingered Hanratty, whose original conviction was unsafe/wrong.

Fight Hanratty's corner by all means, but fight fair or face your critics.

Love,

Caz
X

Hi Caz,

You make a fair point. However, long before the DNA tests, I believed Hanratty might have been convicted unfairly. That belief was based on lots of things which I have previously listed on this thread.The DNA evidence could never erase those doubts. For some people, the DNA evidence proves Hanratty's guilt, for me it doesn't because all of the other things that are 'wrong' about the evidence against Hanratty still stand. Additionally, there are many scientists out there who mistrust the DNA evidence.

It is safe to say that we are never going to agree on this one. It's strange, because I'm not one given to conspiracy theories, but there is something inside me that will always have grave doubts about Hanratty's guilt. Call me foolish, illogical - whatever, but I will never feel any different. I'm not a saint, and I don't believe Hanratty was much more than a feckless, low-down house-breaker whom I would most likely despise in most circumstances - but I don't believe he was a rapist and a murderer. I don't know who was - but I don't believe it was Hanratty.

[Limehouse]

Someone fanastic debate going on, wish I could join in, but I'm not as articulate nor as knowledgeable as some. At the moment I'm back sitting on the fence re JH's guilt!

Keep it up everyone.

Please, please do join in. Of course you are articulate - you can even spell it! You have made some excellent contributions in the past and I would very much like to hear from you.

Julie

[Tony]

Please, please do join in. Of course you are articulate - you can even spell it! You have made some excellent contributions in the past and I would very much like to hear from you.

Julie

Well said Julie,

Burkhilly is always welcome on here.

And because she has returned we must give her something to think about; I shall do some research tomorrow and perhaps I can give her something to think about. Some on here will not like it but then again the whole A6 thing is fascinating but not very nice at the end of the day.

By the way Julie I have tried to look into Acott’s police career prior to his involvement in the A6 and have been totally unsuccessful. Can you give me a clue or help me out? What you said to me by PM has intrigued me.

Tony.

[Victor]

However, long before the DNA tests, I believed Hanratty might have been convicted unfairly. That belief was based on lots of things which I have previously listed on this thread.The DNA evidence could never erase those doubts. For some people, the DNA evidence proves Hanratty's guilt, for me it doesn't because all of the other things that are 'wrong' about the evidence against Hanratty still stand. Additionally, there are many scientists out there who mistrust the DNA evidence.

Hi Julie,

Is there any evidence at all that would convince you of Hanratty's guilt?

Both Foot and Woffinden were clamouring for the DNA tests to be done in the hope of proving Hanratty innocent, but when the results were announced they both attacked them. How can that possibly be interpretted as fair and unbiased? To me it's just plain wrong, it says that if they had exonerated Hanratty they'd be triumphantly waved about as conclusive proof of his innocence, but because they're not what was expected (and desired) then they are flawed. And yet those same arguments could have been used to say that the exonerating results were flawed and he was guilty afterall.

KR,
Vic.

[Dupplin Muir]

Hello all

caz wrote:

Are you honestly suggesting that if the DNA evidence had implicated Alphon (or someone else) but not Hanratty, anyone arguing for the latter's innocence would still have rejected the result, on the grounds that the science at the time was inherently unreliable?

Well, if everything else remained the same, then I would indeed consider it more conclusive, simply because Alphon (rather revealingly) refused to hand over his clothes for testing, so there was no plausible way for contamination to occur.

On the other hand, if he had handed over the garments, and we had reason to believe that there might be semen on them, then contamination would be just as likely as in Hanratty's case.

DM

[Limehouse]

Hi Julie,

Is there any evidence at all that would convince you of Hanratty's guilt?

Both Foot and Woffinden were clamouring for the DNA tests to be done in the hope of proving Hanratty innocent, but when the results were announced they both attacked them. How can that possibly be interpretted as fair and unbiased? To me it's just plain wrong, it says that if they had exonerated Hanratty they'd be triumphantly waved about as conclusive proof of his innocence, but because they're not what was expected (and desired) then they are flawed. And yet those same arguments could have been used to say that the exonerating results were flawed and he was guilty afterall.

KR,
Vic.

Hi Victor,

Unlike Woffinden and Foot, I was not waiting for the DNA results. In fact, I didn't even know what the results were until long after they were published.
The doubts I had and still have about the murder could not be changed by those results, because, as I said before, the other evidence seems so contrived (with the exception of VS's testimony. I fully believe she believed she had identified her killer).

Regards

Julie

[Victor]

Well, if everything else remained the same, then I would indeed consider it more conclusive, simply because Alphon (rather revealingly) refused to hand over his clothes for testing, so there was no plausible way for contamination to occur.

Hi DM,

I believe Alphon did had over his clothes (reluctantly) and gave samples for testing.

Para 119 of the judgment says:-
The file containing the fragment from the knickers was discovered in 1991 by Jennifer Wiles. It was still packaged as described except that the cellophane package was no longer intact. Also found in the file were some broken slides and slide holders possibly having contained hairs and fibres collected at the scene of the murder. There were also two polythene bags each containing hairs thought now to have come from Alphon.

That paragraph also comments on Forensic samples found, although no specific details on where they were from.

KR,
Vic.

[Victor]

The doubts I had and still have about the murder could not be changed by those results, because, as I said before, the other evidence seems so contrived (with the exception of VS's testimony. I fully believe she believed she had identified her killer).

Hi Julie,

Langdale and Nudds evidence can certainly be interpreted as contrived, maybe Anderson too, although it is possible that they were embellishing and exaggerating evidence against a guilty man.

I can't see anything suspicious about the Blackhall\Skillet encounter though, the "3 red stripes" is persuasive.

They are all significantly less contrived than Foot's Conspiracy Theory in my opinion, it just sounds so farfetched.

KR,
Vic.

[Limehouse]

Well, certainly, Nudds and Langdale weaken the evidence against Hanratty as their testimonies were not worth even cursory consideration but the contrived evidence I refer to is the 'placing' of the cartridge cases at the hotel and the 'planting' of the gun, complete with signature hanky, on the bus.

[caz]

Hi DM,

The problem is that there is no evidence of an actual contamination event, no matter how plausible it may seem to those who are convinced that something must have gone wrong to get such an unexpected, unwelcome result.

The fact is, contamination is not the only issue here, even if you could show it was not only plausible in this case but likely. There is still no remotely reasonable or logical explanation for the complete absence of the rapist's DNA from the semen-stained knicker fragment.

Everything is explained perfectly if the three DNA profiles detected are from two types of semen (the lover's followed by the rapist's) mingled with the victim's vaginal fluid. It works, it's logical and it corresponds with the victim's testimony. Had the result been that clear, but with no Hanratty match, I doubt this thread would exist. Who would have got away with rejecting such a result on the grounds that they still believed Hanratty to be guilty?

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Hi Limehouse,

But then we come back to how anyone knew what the real rapist's blood group was and that it would match with the man they were hoping to set up.

And why couldn't someone have planted stuff to help incriminate a guilty Hanratty? They may have known, or guessed, that he was involved and wanted to plant the evidence remotely so it wouldn't involve them too.

If Hanratty was innocent, who were they protecting and why?

Love,

Caz
X

[SteveS]

Hi DM

I have always been impressed by your posts and it is good to see you again. The same goes for Burkhilly (post away mate, or matess!).

The argument that the poster Caz puts forward, as I see it, can be summarized thus:

Those that see Hanratty as being innocent would not have batted an eyelid if the (LCN) DNA tests had found someone else as being culpable in the A6 murder and would have been jubilant at the miracles of modern science, to the extent that is infallible.

What I personally make of this, and what I think Caz is getting at, is that those who believe in Hanratty's innocence will do so at all costs and let the truth be damned.

Caz please correct me if I am wrong.

The problem that this argument stems from, as I have noticed, is that Caz does not seem to understand the problems associated with LCN DNA testing and interpretation. These problems include;

The evidential samples must be shown by complete and unequivocal records that contamination could not have occurred.
No one can be excluded as a suspect as a result of an LCN test.
LCN mixed profiles cannot be interpreted reliably at present.
(the above are because LCN DNA testing is complicated by unreproducible stochastic effects of which there are many different types.)
Tissue source of the DNA cannot be inferred using LCN.
The time at which a sample of DNA was deposited cannot be known.
Any activity resulting in a DNA deposit on a sample cannot be known.
Any DNA (not just LCN) profile cannot prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt alone.

DNA is after all just like any other piece of circumstantial evidence and must be weighed with any other evidence in a particular case. If someone's DNA profile is found it should be pertinent to ask, in the first instance, how did it get there and not "its there so the person must be guilty". LCN though should not be used as evidence in a court of law due to the above problems.

Hanratty's defence at the appeal in 2002 were not aware of the problems of LCN (albeit beyond contamination) and that the problems with it, at that time, had not been thoroughly examined by the wider scientific community.

Caz also forgets the recent findings which have thrown up concerns about its validity. In 2007, the Vincent Simpson case (Templeton Woods) and the Hoey (Omagh bombings) trial placed LCN in the spotlight. So therefore it took another 5 years or so to see it finally being kicked out of court as worthless. Caz's arguments with regard to Hanratty fail all of the test's above.

Further, Caz's well worn tale of if Hanratty wasn't the rapist then what happened to the real rapist's DNA is also answered in the above problems with LCN. It is either there, as a part of the mixture, or on the main part of Ms Stories knicker's from which the fragment was cut by Dr Grant and later destroyed. Remember DNA tissue origin cannot be inferred by LCN.


I for one, putting 2 and 2 together and getting 4, via research, have severe reservations concerning anyone (Alphon for instance) who may have been found culpable beyond any doubt, using this technique as an evidential tool.

Alphon, Hanratty, you, me and Tom, Dick and Harry could have been guilty of being the A6 murderer from a mixed LCN profile as a sign of absoulte guilt according to the FSS.

As far as Alphon goes, no one will now ever know for sure whether he was the A6 murderer. Hanratty certainly wasn't if one is going to be truly fair with regard to empirical evidence and the presumption of innocence, coupled with a reasonable doubt as to guilt. Not at trial in 1962 or at appeal in 2002 has anybody proved, to me, anything of empirical worth to make Hanratty guilty of the A6 murder.

As for the Hanratty family wanting DNA tests, it is true they did. They believe James Hanratty to be innocent and were backed up by the finidngs of the CCRC. It is only now with more hindsight that their stance is correct. The first round of DNA tests were inconclusive but as the appeal approached the FSS managed to pull a sick rabbit out of the hat. Those prepared to accept the view of the wider scientific community to LCN, arrived at over a good few years of research and consideration, will know all about its problems, that can be applied to any case involving LCN. Those who do not will always be plagued by putting blind faith in a system that they know very little about.

DNA in criminal cases, far from being the Gold Standard of evidence, is being seen more and more for what it really is. That is it is nothing more than just a piece in the jigsaw puzzle. It is just another forensic technique as fallible as all the others. Contrary to this though it seems, more and more, that the prosecuting authorities want to do less and less actual investigating and detective work and rely, more and more, on DNA evidence to gain a conviction. That should worry everybody.

Thnx
Steve