a6 murder

[RonIpstone]

In it’s judgment, the Appeal Court said that even without the DNA, there was a very strong case against Hanratty.

It would be interesting to know what their verdict would have been if this evidence had not been available.

Peter.

It is difficult to see how their Lordships arrived at the conclusion that the case, even without the DNA, was very strong. Yet looking at the judgment and the grounds of appeal as dealt with by the Court, one is struck that there was very little new in the case which could lead the the Court to overturn the Jury's verdict.

The jury obviously believed VS when she said she had correctly identified Hanratty, and they did not believe (at least to the extent that it might create a reasonable doubt) Hanratty when he said he was in Rhyl. Given that VS had incorrectly identified someone innocent at a previous parade, one would have thought that this would have been sufficient to dent VS's credibility (not her honesty) in the minds of the jury.

It obviously did not and that was the crux of the case. But to describe it as a strong case is judicial hyperbole.

[Victor]

a very good question, but what would constitute a very good answer? i put forth a couple of suggestions for this some months ago, and was pooh-poohed for my trouble, however, i at least still think that one of the reasons could be valid, and that is the most simplistic, to wit: the rapist did not ejaculate, and so, deposited no genetic material. it answers the question, but is it true? who knows. popular opinion seems to be that it is not a tenable suggestion.

Hi Larue,

It's the blood type O secretor semen detected in 1961 that makes this suggestion untenable. This must be the rapists' semen because MG was AB secretor

Primary and secondary transfer are explained in Paragraph 110 of the judgment:-
DNA may migrate from one surface to another by a variety of means. Primary transfer is what happens when there is direct contact between a donor individual and a recipient individual or surface as might occur during sexual intercourse. Secondary transfer is what happens when the DNA is moved via an intermediary as where a contaminated and an uncontaminated surface are brought into contact with one another. Then there may be movement of DNA again via an intermediary where perhaps the same hand first touches the infected surface and then another surface which had hitherto been uncontaminated as might happen where exhibits are handled without proper precautions in the witness box. Having said that, usually one can expect a greater quantity of DNA to be transferred as a result of primary as opposed to secondary contact. But it is always necessary to allow for particular circumstances as where the DNA is dry, as in the case of hair, or wet, as in the case of seminal fluid. Similarly, regard must be had to the duration of the contact. Up to the happening of the crime event, accidental movement of DNA in this way is referred to as “transfer”; after the crime event as “contamination”.

KR,
Vic.

[Stewart P Evans]

Bad Wording?

My wording in the above post may be bad, so I shall try to explain the contamination aspect a bit better. Of course the damning DNA evidence was so conclusive that those arguing innocence had only the desperate claim of 'contamination' to cling to. Needless to say the word was immediately cried out loud.

DNA may be transferred from one surface to another by various means. Primary transfer is what occurs when there is direct contact between the 'donor' and the recipient person or surface, such as in sexual intercourse. Secondary transfer is what occurs when the DNA is moved via an intermediary such as when a contaminated and an uncontaminated surface are brought into contact with each other. Another way of transfer, also by an intermediary, is when a hand first touches a contaminated surface and then touches another surface which was previously uncontaminated - such as in the handling of exhibits without observing the rules which prevent cross-contamination.

All this is subject to the variables imposed by the circumstances of the alleged possible contamination in this case, and the timing involved. It should also be borne in mind that the various exhibits involved were unlikely to have been removed from their storage packaging nor would the elementary precautions as to the danger of contamination (already recognised in 1961) have been totally ignored. The arguments were all presented in the 2002 Judgment and it was decided the possibility of such contamination was remote and 'the DNA evidence standing alone is certain proof of James Hanratty's guilt.'

Added to that is the fact that it was agreed by Mr. Sweeney and Mr. Mansfield that on the evidence then available Peter Alphon could not have been the murderer - this agreement arising out of the DNA evidence! A retired New Scotland Yard detective inspector friend of mine worked with, and was a friend of, Basil Acott and there was some information on Hanratty (gained in the search of his home) that cast a rather bad light on him but was not admissible as evidence, and has never been published.

[RonIpstone]

Added to that is the fact that it was agreed by Mr. Sweeney and Mr. Mansfield that on the evidence then available Peter Alphon could not have been the murderer - this agreement arising out of the DNA evidence! A retired New Scotland Yard detective inspector friend of mine worked with, and was a friend of, Basil Acott and there was some information on Hanratty (gained in the search of his home) that cast a rather bad light on him but was not admissable as evidence, and has never been published.

I have always thought that the Police must have had some additional non admissible evidence to justify their confidence in the fact that Hanratty was guilty. The admissible evidence did not amount to that much.

[Victor]

I have the documentary on tape somewhere - but don't ask me to find it as I have around 500 unsorted videocassette tapes.

Hi Stewart,

There's quite a few documentaries on YouTube some posted by jimarilyn, here's one... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N4M9dw8FZec

KR,
Vic.

[jimornot?]

hi Stewart

good to see you on this particular thread - welcome.

Interesting to speculate on what the police found re Hanratty that couldn't be used in court. Odd that it hasn't surfaced in any way.

Just a quick question based on your previous life, am I correct in thinking it unusual that Peter Alphon didn't seem to get charged with harrassment etc based on his actions after the case - didn't Lord Russell for one get repeated crank calls from him? He also apparently assaulted Mrs Hanratty?

all the best

Viv

[Stewart P Evans]

Superior Knowledge

hi Stewart
good to see you on this particular thread - welcome.
Interesting to speculate on what the police found re Hanratty that couldn't be used in court. Odd that it hasn't surfaced in any way.
Just a quick question based on your previous life, am I correct in thinking it unusual that Peter Alphon didn't seem to get charged with harrassment etc based on his actions after the case - didn't Lord Russell for one get repeated crank calls from him? He also apparently assaulted Mrs Hanratty?
all the best
Viv

I'm old enough to remember Hanratty being hanged, I was nearly 13 years old at the time, and the case has always interested me. However, I have not studied the case to any great degree and I bow to the superior knowledge of several of the posters here.

I have, in my collection, just about everything published on the case and have visited and photographed the murder scene. Added to that a friend of mine was friendly with Mrs. Gregsten when she was alive and discussed the case with her. Another friend, as I have stated, was a New Scotland Yard detective inspector in the 1950s/60s and knew Bob Acott very well. He said that there was no doubt of Hanratty's guilt as far as the investigating officers were concerned.

As regards Alphon, I have not assessed his actions and whether or not he would be charged with any offences would, of course, depend on the strength of any evidence, the wishes of any injured party and Police/Crown prosecution policy.

I did not know whether or not to mention the police finding certain things, that were not admissible in evidence, in Hanratty's room, but as it is something that I have been made aware of I thought that other interested parties would like to hear of it. Presumably, in the fullness of time, when the official records are released, the full information will become public knowledge.

[Tony]

I'm old enough to remember Hanratty being hanged, I was nearly 13 years old at the time, and the case has always interested me. However, I have not studied the case to any great degree and I bow to the superior knowledge of several of the posters here.

I have, in my collection, just about everything published on the case and have visited and photographed the murder scene. Added to that a friend of mine was friendly with Mrs. Gregsten when she was alive and discussed the case with her. Another friend, as I have stated, was a New Scotland Yard detective inspector in the 1950s/60s and knew Bob Acott very well. He said that there was no doubt of Hanratty's guilt as far as the investigating officers were concerned.

As regards Alphon, I have not assessed his actions and whether or not he would be charged with any offences would, of course, depend on the strength of any evidence, the wishes of any injured party and Police/Crown prosecution policy.

I did not know whether or not to mention the police finding certain things, that were not admissible in evidence, in Hanratty's room, but as it is something that I have been made aware of I thought that other interested parties would like to hear of it. Presumably, in the fullness of time, when the official records are released, the full information will become public knowledge.

I would like you to explain and elaborate/expand on your last paragraph please Stewart.
This is very interesting.

Tony.

As an aside all of you who have sent me PM's I will get back to you in the next few days. I have been away for a few weeks and have only been back since Sunday.
Julie Limehouse, my good friend, if you still look in send me a PM in the next few days. If I don't hear from you by this method I will contact you direct.

Tony.

[Stewart P Evans]

Evidence

I would like you to explain and elaborate/expand on your last paragraph please Stewart.
This is very interesting.
Tony.

Having spent the best part of my life as a police officer I am acutely aware of the nature and rules of evidence and, in this case, it causes me a little discomfort.

The information that was given to me was, at best, hearsay, and although I do not doubt the integrity of the source, in passing it on it becomes 'second-hand' hearsay - which is even worse. It is thus in no way admissible as legal evidence. The information given reflects on motive but is not germane to the actual crime. It was, however, apparently one of the factors that convinced Acott and his men of the offender's guilt.

[Tony]

Having spent the best part of my life as a police officer I am acutely aware of the nature and rules of evidence and, in this case, it causes me a little discomfort.

The information that was given to me was, at best, hearsay, and although I do not doubt the integrity of the source, in passing it on it becomes 'second-hand' hearsay - which is even worse. It is thus in no way admissible as legal evidence. The information given reflects on motive but is not germane to the actual crime. It was, however, apparently one of the factors that convinced Acott and his men of the offender's guilt.

A very good morning to you Stewart,

I think I understand your position but could you at least tell us what you mean by Hanratty’s room?

Where was this room?


Tony.

[Stewart P Evans]

Memory

A very good morning to you Stewart,
I think I understand your position but could you at least tell us what you mean by Hanratty’s room?
Where was this room?
Tony.

As I understood it, it was a room that he used at his home address, but that's only from memory.

[larue]

I did not know whether or not to mention the police finding certain things, that were not admissible in evidence, in Hanratty's room, but as it is something that I have been made aware of I thought that other interested parties would like to hear of it. Presumably, in the fullness of time, when the official records are released, the full information will become public knowledge.

these 'things' wouldn't happen to have been personal posessions of Valerie Story or Michael Gregsten, or some other artifact that could only have come from the deathcar, i wonder?

and why the non admissability??? illegal search perhaps?

this is fascinating information

[larue]

I seem to remember the scientist talked about primary and secondary contact.

Presumably, secondary contact is contamination.

My knowledge of DNA could be written on a pin head.

Peter

contact = contamination

reckon you hit the nail on the head there Peter

[Stewart P Evans]

Motive

these 'things' wouldn't happen to have been personal posessions of Valerie Story or Michael Gregsten, or some other artifact that could only have come from the deathcar, i wonder?
and why the non admissability??? illegal search perhaps?
this is fascinating information

No, there weren't any items that directly linked to the crime. He did not indicate that the search was illegal and all I remember is that he indicated that the material related to a probable motive for the criminal's actions.

[SteveS]

Hi Ron

None of the points you make there were taken by Michael Mansfield QC in the Court of Appeal.

That is quite correct. The problems associated with LCN DNA were not fully acknowledged at the time.

Mr Mansfield QC brought evidence that contamination was quite likely, but none that showed how the contaminating evidence could at one and the same time not only contaminate the exhibit but also remove the DNA of the rapist.

If Prof Jamieson wants to tell us how this could happen then I am all ears.

From my post #4427 and on mixture profiles.

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.

(my bold)

I would challenge anybody to explain how one deposit of DNA can remove another. I believe that is complete nonsense to suggest such a thing. The DNA from one profile may mask another but as Budowle and Jamieson state above (in bold) in essence that mixture interpretation is not validated so analylists just pick and choose what they think fits.

Hi Stewart

My wording in the above post may be bad, so I shall try to explain the contamination aspect a bit better. Of course the damning DNA evidence was so conclusive that those arguing innocence had only the desperate claim of 'contamination' to cling to. Needless to say the word was immediately cried out loud.

It is a fundamental fact of DNA profiling that alone it is conclusive of nothing.

DNA may be transferred from one surface to another by various means. Primary transfer is what occurs when there is direct contact between the 'donor' and the recipient person or surface, such as in sexual intercourse. Secondary transfer is what occurs when the DNA is moved via an intermediary such as when a contaminated and an uncontaminated surface are brought into contact with each other. Another way of transfer, also by an intermediary, is when a hand first touches a contaminated surface and then touches another surface which was previously uncontaminated - such as in the handling of exhibits without observing the rules which prevent cross-contamination.

As Jamieson says

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.

All this is subject to the variables imposed by the circumstances of the alleged possible contamination in this case, and the timing involved. It should also be borne in mind that the various exhibits involved were unlikely to have been removed from their storage packaging nor would the elementary precautions as to the danger of contamination (already recognised in 1961) have been totally ignored. The arguments were all presented in the 2002 Judgment and it was decided the possibility of such contamination was remote and 'the DNA evidence standing alone is certain proof of James Hanratty's guilt.'

You are quoting the 2002 appeal ruling which also says at paragraph 116 that Dr Grant cut the knicker fragment the day after he examined Hanratty's green suit. It is perfectly possible for DNA from Hanratty's suit to have resided in the lab and to have gotten onto the knicker fragment.

It is all very well saying that this is remote but unless it can be shown through proper lab notes and continuity documents that contamination is not possible then any results obtained by any DNA technique have no evidential worth let alone LCN.

And as I said above: It is a fundamental fact of DNA profiling that alone it is conclusive of nothing.

Added to that is the fact that it was agreed by Mr. Sweeney and Mr. Mansfield that on the evidence then available Peter Alphon could not have been the murderer - this agreement arising out of the DNA evidence!

As Dr Budowle says about the exculatory nature of LCN.

LCN results cannot be used to exclude an individual.

So how devious of the prosecution to make such a statement and more to the point, this shows how ill-equipped the defence were to challange LCN at that time. This was not the first time that the prosecution have hoodwinked courts over expert testimony and it certainly won't be the last.

I would suggest to anyone who believe's that LCN is in any way reliable as evidence to read the following document by Dr Dan Krane which was given in evidence in the Sean Hoey trial. You only need to read up to page 27 as the rest is case specific.

http://www.bioforensics.com/statements/Krane_Hoey_statement.pdf

Thnx
Steve