a6 murder

[larue]

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.

Stewart, this is tantalizing beyond belief.

a probable motive for what actions??? the initial attempt at robbery, or the violence that followed???

surely it could only have been the theft, as the abduction murder and rape could not have been pre-planned. or could it?????????????????????

any ideas why 'certain things' relating to this case are still kept from the public gaze??? and if the search was kosher, then why was what was found deemed to be inadmissable???

i'll bet you're really glad you joined this thread now

[jimarilyn]

That was a brilliant (4740) post SteveS, I read it carefully twice. You clarify things most impressively especially for someone like myself who is not scientifically or tecnically minded, and who could never hope to wax lyrical about such matters. My grasp of the DNA Low Copy Number technique used in this case is certainly that little bit greater than it was a year or so ago.

I can understand why this technique (with it's inherent weaknesses and limitations) has not been embraced by the scientific communities of 98% of the World's countries. It is very significant, I believe, that only the UK, Netherlands and New Zealand have adopted this controversial technique. And this is after alleged advances in LCN profiling. Imagine what the situation was a decade ago at the time of the DNA testing when the LCN technique was very new.

James

[P.L.A]

A Policeman’s View

Stewart P Evans

In his retirement, Bob Acott is quoted as telling the press that to the investigating officers, the A6 murder was never more than a simple gas-meter case.

What possible interpretations would you put on this?

Peter

[Stewart P Evans]

Lateral Thinking

Stewart, this is tantalizing beyond belief.
a probable motive for what actions??? the initial attempt at robbery, or the violence that followed???
surely it could only have been the theft, as the abduction murder and rape could not have been pre-planned. or could it?????????????????????
any ideas why 'certain things' relating to this case are still kept from the public gaze??? and if the search was kosher, then why was what was found deemed to be inadmissable???
i'll bet you're really glad you joined this thread now

A touch of lateral thinking and a modicum of understanding of human nature required here - maybe.

[Stewart P Evans]

No

Stewart P Evans
In his retirement, Bob Acott is quoted as telling the press that to the investigating officers, the A6 murder was never more than a simple gas-meter case.
...
Peter

No, because, he felt, it was such a clear cut case. And his knowledge and experience was much greater than ours.

[Victor]

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 Steve,

It is not stated that the all the profiles obtained were mixtures, the Horizon documentary is editted and refers to the handkerchief which only had one profile and matched one of the profiles on the knicker fragment.

It is a fundamental fact that DNA profiling on rape victim's underwear in more cases thatn not will give a more defined profile for the victim. This was known before any of the DNA testing was attempted, and yet the defence team still pushed for the first round of testing, which indicates to me that they were happy to accept this fact then. It's only afterwards that they start moaning in such a strong manner that essentially DNA testing should never be attempted in rape cases. That seems contradictory to me.

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

DNA profiling is an analytical tool that will tell which DNA profile is present on a sample, the interpretation of the profile obtained is the troublesome part, and I've yet to see a plausible explanation for the profiles obtained that does not include Hanratty raping Storie.

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, but where did the rapists' DNA go to?

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.

Again, don't bother DNA testing in rape cases or on old cases, so let Ronald Castree free immediately, why aren't you campaigning for his release?

As Dr Budowle says about the exculatory nature of LCN.
"LCN results cannot be used to exclude an individual."

One scientists opinion that has not been supported by others. If you could find one voice of support then that would start to justify the number of times that particular quote has been used so frequently on these threads.

Imagine what opinion you'd have on the holocaust if all you'd read about the War was written by David Irving!

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.

This is ridiculous, at the time everyone agreed that the profile of the rapist obtained doesn't match Alphon so he was again exonerated, but this time you blame the defence team for agreeing with everyone except Dr Budowe, and to boot see signs of conspiracy.

KR,
Vic.

ps. James further reveals his bias by only reading "carefully" and "twice" posts which attempt to discredit the LCN evidence. Thus demonstrating his suceptibility to propaganda.

[jimarilyn]

I have spoken with the daughter of the owners of the Blackpool doss house Hanratty used shortly before his arrest. She booked the fugitive in and showed him to his room. This lady described Hanratty’s voice as very soft and effeminate. Storie said her assailant had a soft voice.

Interestingly, none of the Rhyl alibi witnesses appear to have commented on this characteristic.

I’m sure we all have our own opinions on how Alphon’s (God bless him) voice is best described.

Peter

Very interesting post Peter.
May I ask when this conversation took place ?
I find it truly amazing that Miss Skellito should be able to recall and describe one particular voice out of the literally hundreds upon hundreds of guests who must have stayed at her parent's guesthouse over the years. It wasn't even as though Hanratty had stayed the night there. In fact he booked in sometime after 10pm on the evening of October 11th and almost immediately left for a late supper at the Stevonia Cafe, the scene of his arrest shortly afterwards.
He was probably in that guesthouse for less than 5 minutes.

As for Valerie stating that her assailant was softly spoken, did she say this shortly after the crime or was it some months later at the Ampthill hearings or the Bedford Trial ?

I remember reading somewhere, something to the effect that Mrs Hanratty commented on the similarity in voices between her son and Alphon. I can't for the life of me recall where I read this. Can anyone help out here ?


Re. Alphon's voice, you're absolutely correct, Peter, we all have an opinion as to how best describe his voice. His utterings at the Paris Press conference in May 1967 are available for all to listen to and study. Unfortunately, for some reason or other we are not privvy to the many taped phone conversations between him and Jean Justice. This is a great pity as we are not able to hear how he would often mispronounce "th" for an "f" especially when he got excited or agitated. Jean Justice testified to as much.

What is very interesting, I feel, is that when you listen really closely to his voice during that Paris Press Conference you discover that he has a speech impediment. And this is almost 6 years after the murder, he is very relaxed and composed in that interview and has the World's Press at his beck and call. He cannot roll his "r" s. He mispronounces the letter "r" for a "w" (much like Jonathan Woss does today and Fwank Muir used to when he was alive). I could almost swear he says "fat" instead of "that" and "fose" instead of "those" on a couple of occasions. You can see and listen to some of that Paris Press Conference in the following YouTube link. It's about 4 and a half minutes into the video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8fTWLJe-iG0

It's no great stretch of the imagination, therefore, (IMO) to visualise a tense Peter Alphon lapsing into his native Cockney and saying things like "free" and "fink" when found in nervous and excitable circumstances. Jean Justice discovered this for himself.


James

[RonIpstone]

Bedford

Did Alphon have any Bedford connections. We know that Hanratty did having stayed with his aunt there. We also know that Hanratty when wanting to go for a spin in his new motor ended up in Bedfordshire. We can say that Bedford had a certain pull for Hanratty, but what about Alphon was he in any way subliminally attracted to Bedfordshire or its county town?

[jimarilyn]

Dear All
The Court treats all witnesses as equal.
It is a basic principle of law that no one knows what the jury are thinking (a lawyer from Mishcon de Raya* told me that). You might assume that a jury have sympathy toward a victim, but no one can be certain. Some might regard Hanratty as a victim.
For the purposes of this blog I see myself as a juror on the A6 trial in 2009. Exactly to whom I give sympathy and credence is my choice.

Hi Andrew,

Good observations as usual. That is also how I see myself " a juror on the A6 trial in 2009".

I can't recall it ever being discussed (or even a passing mention of it) on this thread before but Justice William Gorman, who comes across to many people (myself included) as a very intelligent and fair-minded judge, had some very interesting words for the jury before he left the court at the end of the trial.

His parting words to that 11 man (how sad to note there were no females) jury were "I shall ask that you be not called for further jury service for ten years".

Makes you wonder if he was expressing (cryptically) his disgust at their verdict ? I wonder if he deemed them incompetent ? Somehow I get the strong impression (from all I've learned about the A6 murder) that Justice Gorman was gob-smacked (like many others) at their verdict of guilty. His summing up by all accounts had been favourable to Hanratty.


James (King of the brackets)

[NickB]

It is a wonderful idea, that the 10 years 'sentence' on the jury was to prevent bad jurors returning, but surely it was a reward to them because of the trial’s length.

In the Wallace case, the judge omitted the customary thanks to the jury. I think this is how judges show their disapproval.

[m_w_r]

It is a wonderful idea, that the 10 years 'sentence' on the jury was to prevent bad jurors returning, but surely it was a reward to them because of the trial’s length.

Hi,

At the end of the trial of John Bodkin Adams, the judge told the jurors that they would never have to serve on a jury again. This was in view of the complexity of the case, and the unprecedented duration of the trial, and was effectively an expression of the gratitude of the judiciary. No doubt the same principle was applied to the jury in the A6 case.

Regards,

Mark

[Graham]

Re: Stewart Evans' revelation concerning what was found in JH's room - the first bit of truly new revelation about the A6 Case and we are not to know what the police were referring to? Oh cruel world....are your lips forever sealed, Stewart?

Re: jury service. I was on the jury at a murder case nearly 40 years ago, and at the end the judge told us that we wouldn't be selected again for 10 years due, I think, to the extreme violence of the crime and the fairly obvious effect it had on at least some of the jurors.

Not been around much recently, must pick up on what's being going on here in this thread.

Cheers,

Graham

[SteveS]

Hi Victor

One scientists opinion that has not been supported by others. If you could find one voice of support then that would start to justify the number of times that particular quote has been used so frequently on these threads.

Imagine what opinion you'd have on the holocaust if all you'd read about the War was written by David Irving!

This is ridiculous, at the time everyone agreed that the profile of the rapist obtained doesn't match Alphon so he was again exonerated, but this time you blame the defence team for agreeing with everyone except Dr Budowe, and to boot see signs of conspiracy.

Here are 10 more renowned forensic scientists and criminologists who agree with Dr Budowle when he says that LCN cannot exclude anyone.

Obviously, for one, Professor Allan Jamieson who with Dr Krane gave evidence which led to the suspension of LCN in the UK in 2008.

Dr Dan Krane
Dr Jason Gilder
Professor Roger Koppl
Professor Irving Kornfield
Professor Laurence Mueller
Professor William C Thompson

they state in this criticism of the Caddy Report found @ http://resources.metapress.com/pdf-p...1&size=largest

There are in fact things about LCN approaches upon which the reviewers and critics do agree. For instance, caution that "[p]ublicizing the potential of the application of LCN typing without describing its limitations may cause misunderstanding" [1] which is consistent with the review's recommendations 1, 3, and 13. But given the conclusion that "[t]he method cannot be used for exculpatory purposes" [1], the review's ultimate conclusion that LCN testing is "fit for purpose" leaves the important but unanswered question of "what is that purpose?"

(my bold)

The Caddy Report was compiled by

Professor Brian Caddy
Dr Adrian Linacre
Dr Graham Taylor

who also agree with Dr Budowle.

The full text of the Caddy Report can be found @ http://police.homeoffice.gov.uk/publ...df?view=Binary

Victor, I will post more supporters of Dr Budowle's statement when my time allows.

I will endeavour to find out if David Irving also agrees with Dr Budowle if you think that might help in the A6 murder DNA debate.

Thnx
Steve

[caz]

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...

...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

Thanks for this, Steve.

I don't claim to understand it all, but this part caught my eye:

In sum, no one can be excluded as
a possible contributor to an LCN sample because the allelic drop-out and drop-in cannot
be independently verified – the only evidence that these phenomena have occurred is the
“inconsistency” that they purport to explain (the alternative interpretation, that the
profiles actually do not match, is often more favorable to the suspect).

The problem I have with this in an A6 context is that no "inconsistency" was observed (or at least nobody admitted to observing any) in regard to the premise that three relevant sources of DNA had come into direct contact with the evidential sample (ie the victim's knicker fragment) on the night the crime was committed: the rape victim's vaginal fluid, the murdered man's semen and the rapist's semen.

In short, where is the "inconsistency" that could have provided 'the only evidence' of allelic drop-out or drop-in, or indicated an unidentifiable mixture of additional profiles, in this case? The signals were presumably distinguishable from "noise" on account of the alleles being in the right locus for Valerie and Hanratty, with only Gregston's left to be attributed. There is nothing foggy or incomplete about the findings that needs explaining in the context of the 1961 crime scene evidence or the original verdict - everything seems to be accounted for, and I've seen nothing that even suggests the possibility that a fourth significant source of DNA - eg Alphon's - could have been lurking in with the others but missed entirely.

I suspect that is why Alphon could be safely excluded. It wasn't merely that the profiles didn't appear to match his; there wasn't a profile to spare for him, as the three that were present were already taken.

If I'm talking out of my arse I have absolutely no doubt I will be corrected very shortly and very soundly.

Hi Stewart,

I'm wondering if what was found in Hanratty's room was something unsavoury, but not directly incriminating, that hinted at a penchant for certain 'scenarios', rather than actual evidence of him acting them out. I think anything like that would be - or should be - inadmissible as evidence in a murder case. If so, it might explain why nothing could be done with it.

Was he into porn featuring threesomes, perhaps, or peeping-tommery? Or was it a combination of sex and violence that he fancied - or the idea of holding a gun to a stranger's head and having total power over the situation? Just thinking aloud here. I'm not expecting you to tell me.

Love,

Caz
X

[SteveS]

Hi Caz

The problem I have with this in an A6 context is that no "inconsistency" was observed (or at least nobody admitted to observing any) in regard to the premise that three relevant sources of DNA had come into direct contact with the evidential sample (ie the victim's knicker fragment) on the night the crime was committed: the rape victim's vaginal fluid, the murdered man's semen and the rapist's semen.

In short, where is the "inconsistency" that could have provided 'the only evidence' of allelic drop-out or drop-in, or indicated an unidentifiable mixture of additional profiles, in this case? The signals were presumably distinguishable from "noise" on account of the alleles being in the right locus for Valerie and Hanratty, with only Gregston's left to be attributed. There is nothing foggy or incomplete about the findings that needs explaining in the context of the 1961 crime scene evidence or the original verdict - everything seems to be accounted for, and I've seen nothing that even suggests the possibility that a fourth significant source of DNA - eg Alphon's - could have been lurking in with the others but missed entirely.

I suspect that is why Alphon could be safely excluded. It wasn't merely that the profiles didn't appear to match his; there wasn't a profile to spare for him, as the three that were present were already taken.

If I'm talking out of my arse I have absolutely no doubt I will be corrected very shortly and very soundly.

I am not so sure about your arse but maybe these 2 explanations for us lay people from the inimitable Allan Jamieson might help you to accept that mixture interpretation with DNA is bloody difficult at the best of times but with LCN and its associated stochastic effects it is not repeatable and therefore totally unreliable.

When you mix two people's DNA together, it is like mixing coins in a pocket together. They end up on the table and you have to say which coins came from which person. You simply cannot do that and that is one of the problems of interpreting mixture, not only in this [LCN] copy technique, but in the standard technique.

(my bracketing)

Mixtures create the potential for more difficulty. By way of illustration: if I have profile AB and you have profile CD, our mixed cells would have a profile ABCD. However, the same profile could be produced by two people with profiles AC and BD, or AD and BC. If this mixture was found at a crime scene, we now have six "suspect" profiles. If the person with the BD profile is unlucky enough to live in the area where the crime was committed, BD now needs to explain why he has no association with the material found at the scene. In fact, a mixed profile could generate about 60,000 suspects.

(my bold)

Try extrapolating the number of profiles, in the above quote, from 2 to 3. How many generated suspects have we now got? Add stochatic effects into the mix. Who can reliably be excluded now? How about 4 profiles or more?

See what I am getting at Caz? There are drugs available for very talkative bottoms apparently.

Thnx
Steve