a6 murder

[RonIpstone]

But I still do not understand why there is no unknown DNA belonging to the actual rapist/murderer. The problems which you envisage would seem to produce more profiles than there could be people who left their genetic fingerprint.

Until you have some expert evidence to say that profiles can vanish when contaminated you have difficulties in showing that Hanratty's DNA was not properly identified.

[Tony]

But I still do not understand why there is no unknown DNA belonging to the actual rapist/murderer. The problems which you envisage would seem to produce more profiles than there could be people who left their genetic fingerprint.

Until you have some expert evidence to say that profiles can vanish when contaminated you have difficulties in showing that Hanratty's DNA was not properly identified.

The nurse who first saw VS said on oath in court that her underwear was in an unusual position.

Read VS’s evidence of the journey and Peter Alphon’s statement that only he and VS would have known a certain thing that he said happened in the car that night.

VS has never, as far as I know, contradicted that statement.

Tony.

[jimarilyn]

The nurse who first saw VS said on oath in court that her underwear was in an unusual position.

Read VS’s evidence of the journey and Peter Alphon’s statement that only he and VS would have known a certain thing that he said happened in the car that night.

VS has never, as far as I know, contradicted that statement.

Tony.

This, I feel, is an important and valid point Tony. You're absolutely right, this nurse, who had much experience with rape victims, testified that she thought VS had not been raped "in the classical sense of the word". This was from what she had observed about the condition and position of her knickers.

Valerie, in her evidence, stated that she "was forced to take them [her knickers] off" before the gunman raped her. We not know if she meant that she merely pulled them down to her ankles or whether she removed them completely. When she put them back on perhaps they were inside out or put on back to front and the crotch area of the knickers was not in it's usual position. Whatever the truth of the matter, it's quite remarkable that if the rapist did ejaculate during this act of rape that no semen was detected anywhere on the upholstery of the Morris Minor.

Another big puzzle is that Roger Mann said on the BBC Horizon documentary from 2002 that there was only one DNA profile on the knicker fragment, which is very much at odds with what the controversial Court of Appeal judgment said. They have three profiles, where did the extra two come from ?

James

[RonIpstone]

From paragraph 113 of the Court of Appeal judgment

"The knickers arrived at the Metropolitan Police Laboratory (MPL) on 23 August 1961 where they were examined by Dr Nickolls, the director and his assistant, Henry Howard. They were found to be stained with seminal fluid in the area of the crotch and at the back for five inches upwards from the crotch. Vaginal fluid from Valerie Storie was also present. There were smaller quantities of seminal fluid of blood group AB assumed to have come at some earlier stage from Michael Gregsten."

And earlier at paragraph 106 they had said:

"At the time all that could be shown was that the rapist’s and hence the murderer’s blood group was O secretor. So was James Hanratty’s and Peter Alphon’s together with 40% of the male population."

So the DNA of the rapist was on the knickers in 1961. If Hanratty were not the rapist/murderer then where had the rapist/murderer's DNA gone to by 2002?

If it has somehow morphed into other DNA profiles then what/where are they?

[caz]

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

Thnx
Steve

Thanks Steve, and yes, I do see what you are getting at.

But you haven't really addressed what I was getting at, which is the fact that in this case they have at least two known profiles to look out for, courtesy of Valerie and the remains of Hanratty. If they find all the elements required for matches with both (not forgetting a second match with the mucus from the hankie) but no elements that can be attributed to Alphon, must they seriously concede defeat in case what they have is actually a mixed profile representing an unknown number of other individuals? In short, if what they find is entirely consistent with Hanratty blowing his nose on that hankie at some point and also raping Valerie, who had earlier made love with Gregsten, it ain't broke so why would it need fixing?

As for the nurse and the knickers, I'm not sure it makes any difference if it was a simple case of Valerie putting them back on in the dark after her terrible ordeal, either back to front, inside out, or just possibly through a leg hole by mistake (assuming it was wide enough to go round her middle), the last case leaving the gusset skew-whiff and up to one side, away from her crotch. We only know where seminal fluid was found on the garment itself (on the gusset and up from the gusset at the back), but not where it had been on Valerie's person before coming into contact with the material. And seminal fluid doesn't seep out in one go, but at intervals, especially if one gets up and moves about afterwards, as Valerie was forced to do. So the angle and extent of the staining would have depended on all the positions she was in after replacing her undies, from leaning backwards or forwards to sitting, to standing and walking, and lastly to falling and lying down again when she herself was shot.

The fact remains that they identified the three distinct bodily fluids that were consistent with Valerie's account of what happened. The piece of material stained with the rapist's semen was retained and forty years later it was confirmed as Hanratty's. Any suggestion that they could have thrown this piece away and kept the wrong bit (in addition to transferring Hanratty's semen onto the latter by mistake) would be fanciful in the extreme.

Love,

Caz
X

[Stewart P Evans]

Keith Simpson

It is interesting to note that the Home Office forensic pathologist Keith Simpson always strongly believed in Hanratty's guilt, here is a 1970 letter in which Simpson confirms that view.

[P.L.A]

It is interesting to note that the Home Office forensic pathologist Keith Simpson always strongly believed in Hanratty's guilt, here is a 1970 letter in which Simpson confirms that view.

Hi Stewart

Simpson also said this in his autobiography.

Peter.

[P.L.A]

What is the argument?

I get rather confused about what Hanratty supporters are actually saying about the DNA evidence. It should be noted that I get confused over most things these days.

My understanding of the 2002 appeal is:

Alphon’s DNA wasn’t found on either exhibit, leading both sides to conclude he couldn’t have been culpable.

Hanratty’s DNA was found on both pieces of cloth.

Crown says the DNA got there a)during commission of the crime and b) by blowing his nose.

Defence claim there is a significant probability the DNA could have been transferred by contamination.

The judges accepted there was a theoretical possibility the DNA was present due to contamination, but rejected the hypothesis as being highly improbable. They said the DNA evidence makes a strong case even stronger.

Just which bit or bits do the Hanrattyites challenge? Do they believe:

a) Hanratty’s DNA was present due to contamination, despite the Judges’ belief that the combination of circumstances required for this to have happened is fanciful.

b) The DNA isn’t Hanratty’s, but problems with the LCN technique make it appear to be his.

c) The DNA is in fact Alphon’s, but problems with the LCN technique make it appear to be Hanratty’s.

d) Something else I can’t think of.

Regards

Confused of Riyadh.

[RonIpstone]

The Crown's expert evidence was to the effect that the possibility of contamination was remote, but possible nonetheless. Hanratty's expert evidence was that there was a realistic possibility of contamination.

What the judges described as 'fanciful' (as regards the knicker fragment) was that the DNA could be contaminated in such a way that the DNA of the rapist (on the basis he was not Hanratty) could be overridden by Hanratty's contaminating DNA so that the rapist's DNA escaped detection.

The judges said the same applied to the hankie. But (in my opinion) the hankie is of much less probative value than the knicker fragment as it is only proof that Hanratty's used hankie was used to dispose of the murder gun.

The judges went on to say that the for both exhibits to be contaminated so as to remove the killer's DNA was 'beyond belief'.

What the Hanrattyites have to explain is (with regard to the knickers fragment) that if the rapist was not Hanratty how has Hanratty's DNA managed to override the DNA of the rapist, yet not override the DNA of Storie and Gregsten.

[Victor]

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.

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?

Hi Steve,

It's perfectly true that unknown mixed profiles are difficult to interpret, but when you are dealing with certain known profiles like the victim's profile on her knickers, it makes things a lot easier.

Using the analogy above, if we assume the profile of Storie is VS, Gregsten is MG, Hanratty is JH and Alphon is PA. We get a profile of HJ on the hanky, and on the knickers GHJMSV (alphabetical order).

So what can we conclude? Well there's lots of possibilities, but the JH bits match, and the VS is entirely expected on the knickers and can safely be accounted for, similar for the MG, and there's no sign of P or A.

That simplifies things immensely and leads to the unsurprising conclusions.

KR,
Vic.

ps. If you want to start a "Project Steve" style competition over the LCN then go ahead.

[Graham]

It is interesting to note that the Home Office forensic pathologist Keith Simpson always strongly believed in Hanratty's guilt, here is a 1970 letter in which Simpson confirms that view.

[ATTACH]7194[/ATTACH]

Out of a kind of bored interest, I Googled "Dancers End Lodge" and note with interest that it's valued at around £700000 if anyone fancies putting in an offer.

Graham

[SteveS]

Hi Victor

Hi Steve,

It's perfectly true that unknown mixed profiles are difficult to interpret, but when you are dealing with certain known profiles like the victim's profile on her knickers, it makes things a lot easier.

(my bold)

Oh yeah? Who says? You are the only one I have come across who believes this. The Caddy report into LCN only mentions mixtures 3 times. They don't have confidence in it either. This is in 2008 and seeing that LCN was used in Hanratty in 1997 what do you make of that?

Please give published case work evidence to back up your theory of LCN mixture interpretation.

Using the analogy above, if we assume the profile of Storie is VS, Gregsten is MG, Hanratty is JH and Alphon is PA. We get a profile of HJ on the hanky, and on the knickers GHJMSV (alphabetical order).

Well done Victor but that is if we take the Court of Appeal's judgement as an absolute. Roger Mann, though, on the BBC's Panaroma programme suggests only one profile. There is a controvesy which ever way you make it out.

So what can we conclude? Well there's lots of possibilities, but the JH bits match, and the VS is entirely expected on the knickers and can safely be accounted for, similar for the MG, and there's no sign of P or A.

That simplifies things immensely and leads to the unsurprising conclusions.

(my bold)

Yes Victor, there are a lot of possibilities. 60,000 extrapolated 3 or 4 or more times in fact.

Why did you mention PA, above, and then not put it into the mix? Seeing that LCN is not exculpatory, who says his profile wasn't there and what reason would you give for this? This is a serious error on your part.

What quantitation of original DNA template for the samples were found? Do you know what RFU level(s) was/were used for ascertaining the allele peaks in the interpretation? What were the peak height areas and peak height imbalances for each allele? Have you even considered what the stochastic effects associated with LCN would have on the interpretation?

How do you know what you say is correct for absolute certain?

Everyone on the thread awaits your response with baited breathe.

ps. If you want to start a "Project Steve" style competition over the LCN then go ahead.

What's up Victor. You seem to be the one getting all competitive all of a sudden. You challenged me to give the names of supporters of Dr Budowle's findings. Which, in all good faith, I did. 10 for starters. I will find more.

If you want to start a Project Victor that is supported by forensic scientists who truly believe in the evidential and exculpatory worth of LCN then you go ahead.

Please post their names as I would be most interested to know of anyone who now supports this corrupt science.

I wish you the best of luck.

Thnx
Steve

[Graham]

This whole DNA thing is getting a bit sad now. All I would ask of SteveS is to explain how he might get around Ron Ipstone's perfectly-sensible and valid statement:

What the Hanrattyites have to explain is (with regard to the knickers fragment) that if the rapist was not Hanratty how has Hanratty's DNA managed to override the DNA of the rapist, yet not override the DNA of Storie and Gregsten.

and interesting indeed that SteveS seems to have ignored PLA's also very valid post.

Back to my bottle of half-way decent claret.

Graham

[SteveS]

Hi Everyone

Here is the mission statement of Project Steve that Victor refers to:

NCSE's "Project Steve" is a tongue-in-cheek parody of a long-standing creationist tradition of amassing lists of "scientists who doubt evolution" or "scientists who dissent from Darwinism."
Creationists draw up these lists to try to convince the public that evolution is somehow being rejected by scientists, that it is a "theory in crisis." Not everyone realizes that this claim is unfounded. NCSE has been asked numerous times to compile a list of thousands of scientists affirming the validity of the theory of evolution. Although we easily could have done so, we have resisted. We did not wish to mislead the public into thinking that scientific issues are decided by who has the longer list of scientists!
Project Steve pokes fun at this practice and, because "Steves" are only about 1% of scientists, it also makes the point that tens of thousands of scientists support evolution. And it honors the late Stephen Jay Gould, evolutionary biologist, NCSE supporter, and friend.
We'd like to think that after Project Steve, we'll have seen the last of bogus "scientists doubting evolution" lists, but it's probably too much to ask. We hope that when such lists are proposed, reporters and other citizens will ask, "How many Steves are on your list!?"



The statement:

Evolution is a vital, well-supported, unifying principle of the biological sciences, and the scientific evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of the idea that all living things share a common ancestry. Although there are legitimate debates about the patterns and processes of evolution, there is no serious scientific doubt that evolution occurred or that natural selection is a major mechanism in its occurrence. It is scientifically inappropriate and pedagogically irresponsible for creationist pseudoscience, including but not limited to "intelligent design," to be introduced into the science curricula of our nation's public schools.

Is this Steve on your list?

Thnx
Steve

[Victor]

Well done Victor but that is if we take the Court of Appeal's judgement as an absolute.

Hi Steve,

Don't you take the judgement as absolute? I certainly feel that when they are quoting results like that there's no reason to doubt it.

Roger Mann, though, on the BBC's Panaroma programme suggests only one profile. There is a controvesy which ever way you make it out.

Who knows what Roger Mann on Panaroma meant? You'll need to ask him to explain himself as he contradicts the judgement.

Yes Victor, there are a lot of possibilities. 60,000 extrapolated 3 or 4 or more times in fact.

No, not 60,000 in fact, because if we eliminate the VS and MG from the mix then we are left with one profile.

Why did you mention PA, above, and then not put it into the mix? Seeing that LCN is not exculpatory, who says his profile wasn't there and what reason would you give for this? This is a serious error on your part.

It was deliberate, no trace of Alphon's profile was found, therefore I didn't include it in the results, but he undoubtedly does have a DNA profile. Furthermore I do not accept that LCN is not exculpatory, so I accept the judgement when it excludes him.

What quantitation of original DNA template for the samples were found? Do you know what RFU level(s) was/were used for ascertaining the allele peaks in the interpretation? What were the peak height areas and peak height imbalances for each allele?

Absolutely no idea, as far as I'm aware that information has never been published.

Have you even considered what the stochastic effects associated with LCN would have on the interpretation?

Yes. Without the results it's impossible to say.

How do you know what you say is correct for absolute certain?

Because I'm quoting from the only official source.

KR,
Vic.