a6 murder

[Victor]

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

Hi Steve,

I gave the hyperlink so those who don't know could go and check it out.

I thought it was quite appropriate because you were doing the same thing as the creationists, amassing a list of scientists who doubt LCN and calling it "corrupt science".

Is this Steve on your list?

What list?

"How many Steves are on your list" of scientists who doubt LCN?

It looks like Graham, Ron, Peter and myself are amongst those still awaiting a reply to this question...

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.

Or any of Peter's last post #4763.

KR,
Vic.

[Graham]

Hi Vic,

maybe Stevie's recent silence is because he's flown off to Italy to challenge the DNA evidence in the Kercher Case.

Graham

[burkhilly]

Graham........some of your posts are so funny. Nice to see a little humour in the thread.

[Graham]

Hi Julie,

Thanks for your kind comment....this thread needs a little humour, even though the subject is not at all humorous.

Cheers,

Graham

[SteveS]

Hi Vic,

maybe Stevie's recent silence is because he's flown off to Italy to challenge the DNA evidence in the Kercher Case.

Graham

France actually, I went there with 100,000 euros to pay your drinks bill

[SteveS]

Hi Peter and Ron

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.

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.

I cannot speak for any of the other Hanratty supporters or so called Hanrattyites.

I have a reasonable doubt over LCN because I have looked into the grave failings of LCN typing as an evidential and exculpatory tool that is neither fit nor robust for use in courts of law.

If you want to find out more about LCN then I would encourage you to do so. There has been a wealth of linked information posted on the A6 forum and it's sub threads. There is shitloads more on the internet.

Graham stated some while back in a reply to whom he now calls the unloved and unregretted Reg1965. I quote:

To support Foot and Hanratty was to put the boot into the Establishment. When the results of the DNA were first publicised I was amazed, astonished and, frankly, sceptical. However, I have never, ever, not to this day, the other place notwithstanding, seen any good reason to doubt the results. DNA, like finerprints, is not a matter of personal opinion - it is fact, scientific fact. To doubt it is to doubt the very basis of scientific criminal investigation in the 21st century, something which I am not prepared to do. Simple as that.

Whatever he may have accepted in the past he accepts the DNA evidence now, full stop, without any questions. So he isn't going to help you.

Victor states here that he believes LCN is exculpatory.

I do not accept that LCN is not exculpatory, so I accept the judgement when it excludes him.

He is wrong. So he isn't going to help you either.

Other posters come on to these threads and just quote from the Court of Appeal ruling as being the Gospel according to St. DNA. You, and they, know who they are.

For goodness sake don't be a mushroom...kept in the dark and fed a load of bullshit!

We all started with the Court of Appeal ruling of 2002 and worked from there. Why should you believe what I, the FSS, the Court of Appeal or anyone else tells you anyway? Do your own work and find out for yourself.

If you, or anyone, would like an additional resource into how miscarriages of justice happen then I wholeheartedly recommend "No Smoke" by Sandra Lean. It is, refreshingly, quickly printed to order at a reasonable price at Amazon. A great Xmas pressie, no doubt, for that someone special. It can be found here:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/No-Smoke-Lady-Sandra-Lean/dp/1906628009/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1260123198&sr=1-1

Merry Xmas

Thnx
Steve

[jimarilyn]

Hi SteveS,

Another very perceptive post as usual, you have a very keen and discerning scientific mind. Thank you for the Sandra Lean link, I went to the Amazon site and read the three very favourable reviews. Seems like a must read, I will be investing in a copy real soon. Maybe Graham will too, it will only set him back the price of two bottles of the red (or white) stuff

James

[RonIpstone]

Other posters come on to these threads and just quote from the Court of Appeal ruling as being the Gospel according to St. DNA. You, and they, know who they are.

That's a little harsh. There may be cases where to place reliance on DNA evidence would be to court injustice; the question is whether the case of James Hanratty is one of them?

We know that the seminal fluid of the rapist found its way on to VS's knickers, what we want to know is how that DNA can vanish, whereas other DNA, undoubtedly there at the time of the commission of the offences, has not vanished.

The logic of the Court of Appeal seems impeccable, and that is why so many accept it.

Now if one is saying that the logic is based on erroneous facts, then, in this case, the onus must be on the Hanratty supporters to adduce expert evidence to the effect that Hanratty's DNA could contaminate the exhibits to leave Hanratty's DNA and remove that of the actual rapist. Or adduce evidence that the rapist's DNA could vanish after 40 years.

Until someone qualified in the field of forensic DNA comes along to say that either is possible then we, the Jimdiditites, will rely on the Court of Appeal's logic. It's no use saying that DNA and LCN etc. could be unreliable in other cases, that is as well as maybe, it's the Hanratty case that has to be concentrated on, and in particular the mystery of the vanishing DNA.

[Victor]

I have a reasonable doubt over LCN because I have looked into the grave failings of LCN typing as an evidential and exculpatory tool that is neither fit nor robust for use in courts of law.

Hi Steve,

I still don't understand which part of the LCN results you doubt. Do you think that the profile of VS on the knickers was correctly determined? I would say that that result in itself establishes that LCN can work as required.

Following on from that result, we have the profile of Hanratty on the knickers, now I specifically want to know how you think this arose. As I see it if we presume Hanratty is innocent then there are several possibilities:-

1. This profile was obtained from contamination from various sources, such as Hanratty handling it in the first hearing or semen from the Hepworth trousers or wash thereof getting transferred to it. The problem with this theory is that there is no explanation for how the actual rapists' DNA profile was not detected.

2. The actual rapists' DNA profile was identical to James Hanratty. The chances of this are 1 in many millions.

3. Random and irreproducible stoiciastic effects associated with LCN resulted in the actual rapists' DNA profile morphing into Hanratty's. That means that each one of the up to 26 peaks shifted and by chance happened to shift to where Hanratty's corresponding peak would appear. And for each of the repeated runs of the test, these irreproducible effects repoducibly happened.

4. Something else I can't think of.

So which do you believe? If 4 please explain further.

Whatever he [Graham] may have accepted in the past he accepts the DNA evidence now, full stop, without any questions. So he isn't going to help you.

That's a little unfair, there are valid questions that can and have been asked about the DNA evidence, it's just there are acceptable answers.

Victor states here that he believes LCN is exculpatory.

Yes I do. I recognise and understand the arguments about stoiciastic effects complicating things, but they are irreproducible and for one profile to reproducibly morph into another is theoretically possible but practically unrealistic.

I think it's fair to quote yourself back to you...

For goodness sake don't be a mushroom...kept in the dark and fed a load of bullshit!

...by Foot, Woffinden, Justice, Fox et al.

We all started with the Court of Appeal ruling of 2002 and worked from there. Why should you believe what I, the FSS, the Court of Appeal or anyone else tells you anyway? Do your own work and find out for yourself.

Actually I started from reading my mother's copy of Foot in the 80s, and worked from there. Obviously there are different opinions on things like whether Ewer knew Anderson, but the best bet is to rely on the details in the judgement from 2002 and to insist on corroboration for contradictory information, such as "Hitch-hiker murder" or "She saw him at the cleaners" from dubious press cuttings.

If you, or anyone, would like an additional resource into how miscarriages of justice happen then I wholeheartedly recommend "No Smoke" by Sandra Lean. It is, refreshingly, quickly printed to order at a reasonable price at Amazon. A great Xmas pressie, no doubt, for that someone special. It can be found here:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/No-Smoke-Lad...0123198&sr=1-1

Cheers for that, I'm not convinced of the innocence of Sion Jenkins so that should be an interesting read.

Merry Xmas

Live long and prosper.

KR,
Vic.

[jimornot?]

...............

Hi Steve,


1. This profile was obtained from contamination from various sources, such as Hanratty handling it in the first hearing or semen from the Hepworth trousers or wash thereof getting transferred to it. The problem with this theory is that there is no explanation for how the actual rapists' DNA profile was not detected.............
............3. Random and irreproducible stoiciastic effects associated with LCN resulted in the actual rapists' DNA profile morphing into Hanratty's. That means that each one of the up to 26 peaks shifted and by chance happened to shift to where Hanratty's corresponding peak would appear. And for each of the repeated runs of the test, these irreproducible effects repoducibly happened...........

Hi Vic

that was a good, well balanced post in answer to SteveS. I confess that the DNA stuff loses me -despite the fact I have read all the stuff that has appeared on this and the other thread.

have you any idea what are the approxinate odds of option 3 happening? is it greater than option 1 or 2 given by you? I understand that the traces of DNA found were reported as having a patten onsistent with sexual activity having taken place. I assume this would deny any argument that the DNA of the rapist (if he was not hanratty) was on a different part of the knicker sample. Outrageous I know, but thought I'd ask


It is all rather incredible still that there were no traces of DNA found in the car or rather no samples were found / kept, on which tests could be made. But we have discussed this before

Re the book recommmeneded by Steve, I was also interested in the reference to Sion Jenkins. He has, I believe been calling for additional DNA tests on the murder weapon because technology has improved. I understand these tests are not possible (?) How has DNA rechnology improved over the years - does it imply original tests are potentially flawed (leaving aside the A6 case)?

thanks

ATB

Viv

[Victor]

Hi Viv,

I would have to say that for irreproducible effects to reproducibly happen must be more unlikely than the other alternatives, unless the repeat runs of PCR cycles were not undertaken independantly and were actually several analyses on effectively the same amplified sample. Although that would be deception on the part of the scientists or in other words a conspiracy theory.

It is all rather incredible still that there were no traces of DNA found in the car or rather no samples were found / kept, on which tests could be made.

Awareness of DNA in the early sixties was limited (Watson and Crick determined the structure of DNA in 1953), and it was probably not considered likely to be of evidential value. Most of the evidence from the trial was destroyed shortly after the trial finished, which is a great shame.

Re the book recommmeneded by Steve, I was also interested in the reference to Sion Jenkins. He has, I believe been calling for additional DNA tests on the murder weapon because technology has improved. I understand these tests are not possible (?) How has DNA rechnology improved over the years - does it imply original tests are potentially flawed (leaving aside the A6 case)?

Apparently the tent peg (murder weapon) was wiped to try and find any traces of evidence and so nothing useful is likely to remain, and tests would reveal nothing.

DNA profiling is slowly improving in that useful profiles are possible from smaller and smaller samples, but this means that contamination from smaller traces will also be picked up. Additionally more loci are added to the standard profile so helping to distinguish between individuals, although monozygotic (identical) twins will probably always have the same profile, and it's also theoretically possible but unlikely for siblings to have the same profile as each parent contributes half of everyone's profile.

Of course Sion Jenkins has not been found innocent or even technically not guilty, so it's unsurprising he's still trying to find evidence implicating someone else.

KR,
Vic.

[caz]

...I'm not convinced of the innocence of Sion Jenkins...

Nor me, Vic. Put it this way. If I were a millionairess I'd want a few thousand miles between him and me - in case he lost his temper.

Re the DNA findings, I've said it before but I'll say it again. All I need is some rational explanation for what was found if someone other than Hanratty was the rapist, and I will gladly reconsider my position. How smart can the "Hanratty is innocent" people really be if none of them can come up with anything remotely plausible? They keep falling back on the "inherently unreliable - nobody can be excluded" line, which they would have been obliged to follow regardless of the result. The irony is that this argument would have left them unable to exclude Hanratty either. Back to square one whichever way you look at it.

And still no firm alibi.

So remind me - how is anyone meant to clear Hanratty now?

Love,

Caz
X

[RonIpstone]

So remind me - how is anyone meant to clear Hanratty now?

Is anyone trying to clear him now?

The case will never go back to the Court of Appeal so the only way of clearing Jim will be in the court of public opinion. Until 2002 the majority view, thanks mainly to the books of Foot and Woffinden and the TV programme of the latter, was that Hanratty's execution was a miscarriage of justice. Now after the failed appeal the perception in the great wide world is that Hanratty was guilty and if any crime deserved the death penalty, this was it.

So, does anyone know if any member of the Hanratty family, or their lawyers or experts instructed on their behalf is doing anything to discredit the expert evidence which weighed so heavily against Hanratty in the 2002 appeal?

The point which has been made so many times on this forum can be stated shortly as: if Hanratty was not the rapist, then where has the rapist's DNA on the knicker fragment got to? Or, how has Hanratty's contaminating DNA managed to remove the actual rapist's DNA without removing MG's or VS's DNA?

If any progress in the court of public opinion is to be made then a forsenic DNA expert must assert that it was so possible for the contaminating DNA of Hanratty to completely obliterate the real rapist's DNA.

Until that step is taken, then Hanratty is not only guilty in law but in the minds of most who are interested in the case.

[SteveS]

Hi all

Here is an interesting story I read today.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8400097.stm

It may not have been obvious before but it certainly is now. He who pays the piper calls the tune. If you know what I mean.

I cannot believe the gaul of Chris Sim's of ACPO. The BBC's report says, and I quote

Chris Sims, who takes the lead on forensics for the Association of Chief Police Officers (Acpo), said the police need to get value for money but doubts that this need to balance the budget affects cases like Luke's.
"You've got to look at the whole evidence. What was the identification evidence? What are the other circumstances?," he said.
"Forensics can be critical to a case but never have I ever seen a case that stood alone on forensic science."

How can Sim's say this when the public do not even know Luke's real name and therefore cannot judge for themselves what the evidence, whether indentification, circumstantial or otherwise, was? Perhaps Luke is lodging an appeal and any publication would be sub judice! Sim's is certainly trying to make a lot of capital from it. What do others think of Sim's statement?

Sim's says above that:

never have I ever seen a case that stood alone on forensic science

I am quite prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt. But only to the point of cases at original trial level. In Hanratty's appeal in 2002 the appeal was, as all will agree, dismissed purely on DNA evidence. It was a case after all, and the first were the Crown proffered fresh evidence.

Does anyone here agree that Mr Sim's has a selective memory?

I don't have any more to say on the DNA in Hanratty other than that in my opinion the results were faked to suit the Crowns position.

As the late, great Edward R Murrow would have said "good night and good luck".

Thnx
Steve

[Victor]

How can Sim's say this when the public do not even know Luke's real name and therefore cannot judge for themselves what the evidence, whether indentification, circumstantial or otherwise, was? Perhaps Luke is lodging an appeal and any publication would be sub judice! Sim's is certainly trying to make a lot of capital from it. What do others think of Sim's statement?

Hi Steve,

Sim's statement makes complete sense, especially as "the defendant had been through the criminal justice system and was convicted in a court of law with the right to appeal". To me it appears that Sims was directly asked about this specific case amongst others, and gave the standard answer for a case where he's not allowed to give specific answers - there's more evidence than just the forensics.

In Hanratty's appeal in 2002 the appeal was, as all will agree, dismissed purely on DNA evidence. It was a case after all, and the first were the Crown proffered fresh evidence.

The 2002 appeal was dismissed primarily because of the DNA evidence, however the trial evidence of the identifications, the cartridge cases in the Vienna, and the lack of a substantiated alibi which was all accepted by the jury in 1962 also played a significant role.

Does anyone here agree that Mr Sim's has a selective memory?

Not at all, the Hanratty appeal of 2002 specifically confirmed that the original jury were correct in their assessment of the evidence and used the DNA evidence to support that position.

I don't have any more to say on the DNA in Hanratty other than that in my opinion the results were faked to suit the Crowns position.

Fair enough, you think there was a conspiracy spanning 40 years and involving way too many participants to be remotely plausible. And what motives do you think all these people had for this? Peter posted a list of other case such as Bentley, Siszko, Hodgson, Birmingham 6, &tc several months ago where convictions have been overturned which indicate that there are no reasons for such a conspiracy.

They [Hanratty Supporters] keep falling back on the "inherently unreliable - nobody can be excluded" line, which they would have been obliged to follow regardless of the result. The irony is that this argument would have left them unable to exclude Hanratty either. Back to square one whichever way you look at it.

Hi Caz,

I couldn't agree more, just why was Woffinden so keen on getting DNA tests done if he wasn't going to accept the results?

KR,
Vic.