a6 murder

[Victor]

Is this true of the original examination of the forensic evidence? Since DNA testing was far in the future, why would the people examining the evidence bother?

Hi DM,

The same is true for blood typing tests, so yes it was known and precautions were taken.

Note here the reference to thoroughly independent samples and also multiple, independent, non-communicating laboratories. Of course, by destroying the samples, FSS have made such necessary checks impossible...

All DNA testing is destructive - the sample is consumed during the test, that's well known and widely known. Suggesting that FSS deliberately and unnecessarily destroyed the samples is a looney tunes conspiracy theory.

KR,
Vic.

[Victor]

Skillett did identify him.Blackhall did not. Therefore they negate each other

Hi Norma,

Er...no, they do not negate eachother, one is a positive identification, the other says that identification is wrong, but they both can't be right so one of them is mistaken.

Trower did identify him.But the jury accepted from the measurement demonstrations of the defence,that Trower could not have seen the driver in the way he claimed he had seen him.

The jury heard evidence that Trower's ID was questionable, but again that doesn't mean he is wrong.

Two witnesses from Avondale Crescent were never called---presumed to be part of Sherrard"s assertion that wickedness had taken place over certain "withheld evidence".

Lots of witnesses were not called - presumably Sherrard had their names and addresses and could have interviewed them and called them if he so desired.

Valerie is the only other person who identified him and Valerie identified two men as her rapist,one was Michael Clark -who she thought looked like newspaper pictures of Alphon and the other was James Hanratty.

As Graham has pointed out Alphon and Clark were in front of her at the same time, and she thought Clark looked more like her rapist than Alphon.

Yes,Vic,the hanky was subjected to tests but not DNA tests.

DNA testing wasn't around at the time!

KR,
Vic.

[Dupplin Muir]

Hello all

An interesting article at http://www.scientific.org/tutorials/...ley/riley.html.

Among some relevant quotes are:

In forensic DNA testing, some of the scientifically worst-case scenarios can be prevented by keeping DNA samples from known individuals well out of range of other items of evidence at all stages.

Is this true of the original examination of the forensic evidence? Since DNA testing was far in the future, why would the people examining the evidence bother?

For example, suppose evidence item #1 has little to no DNA or has DNA degraded beyond the ability to function in a PCR. Suppose further that item #2 is a defendants reference blood stain that would typically have a high concentration of undegraded genomic DNA from the defendant. If item #2 comes in close proximity with item #1, or comes in contact with item #1, the genomic DNA from item #2 may contaminate item #1. Subsequent DNA typing of contaminated item #1 will give the false impression that the defendant contributed DNA to item #1 during a crime. Similarly, when there are multiple items of evidence with some having larger amounts of DNA and some much lower, cross-contamination is an important consideration.

The laboratory should be extremely careful not to overstate the scientific value of the evidence. For example, reports that a profile occurs in 1 in a billion, randomly selected individuals greatly overstate the proven error rate of the technology since false convictions based on DNA evidence have been established. Perhaps such rare match probabilities could be reached if thoroughly independent samples produced the same results in multiple, independent, non-communicating laboratories. But, for single laboratories, extremely rare match probabilities misrepresent the scientific value of technology.

Note here the reference to thoroughly independent samples and also multiple, independent, non-communicating laboratories. Of course, by destroying the samples, FSS have made such necessary checks impossible...

DM

[Graham]

[/B]

All is forgiven!

He said he might be with the Jimdidntdoitites, Norma - not that he is with 'em!

Graham

[Graham]

Norma, Ron,

I agree that i.d. evidence is sometimes questionable, and I agree that Valerie's i.d. of Hanratty is indeed slightly questionable - but of course I say this with the benefit of hindsight. The fact is that her identification was accepted by the court and obviously the jury accepted it - whether not it was a strong enough identification to hang a man by is naturally open to debate. Which is why we're here. I agree with Ron that there are aspects of the i.d. parade which most certainly can be questioned, but Kleinmann was present and he raised no objections at the time. And yes, I know that when Acott called the parade he requested skull-caps for all participants, but no skull-caps were used. Again, Kleinmann was there to see fair play and raised no objection. Valerie's identification was, I feel, valid, but perhaps not totally watertight if I can put it that way.

Graham

[Natalie Severn]

RonIpstone
Quote:
Originally Posted by Graham
I see no grounds to accuse Valerie of being confused or unreliable. The simple fact is that when confronted with Hanratty, she recognised him.
Hello Graham,

I think I might be with the Jimdidnotdoites (aka The Hanratty Appreciation Society, aaka the Flat Earthers) on this one.

All is forgiven!

[RonIpstone]

I see no grounds to accuse Valerie of being confused or unreliable. The simple fact is that when confronted with Hanratty, she recognised him.

Hello Graham,

I think I might be with the Jimdidnotdoites (aka The Hanratty Appreciation Society, aaka the Flat Earthers) on this one.

The trouble is that on the first parade VS picked out the one most like the murderer as she felt she had to pick someone out. There must therefore be considerable suspicion that she approached the second parade in much the same way. If VS had been made aware that the last occupant of Room 24 of the Vienna was on the parade and that the suspect had dyed his hair (Barnet), added to the fact that Hanratty was the only (one of a few) Londoner on the parade and that he was in a state of extreme agitation, then it might not be too difficult for VS to make the identification of the prime suspect without having recognised him from the night of 22/23 August.

I do not accuse VS of any mala fides in this, but she must have wanted to catch the culprit and must have been subliminally influenced to identify the Police's prime suspect. Identification evidence is always suspect and VS's in this case must have been more suspect than most. In short, she guessed on the first parade and MAY have had a guess on the second parade, but her second guess was made more likely to succeed as the prime suspect stood out like a carrot etc.

Ron

[Natalie Severn]

Thanks Graham,
I didn"t say Valerie was confused.Quite right she did not pick out Alphon and she did pick out a man named Michael Clark-fact.She later said to Michael Sherrard at the trial that she agreed she had said the man "looked like a newspaper picture she had seen of Alphon".

Valerie took 20 minutes to identify Hanratty and again, according to experts in America they insist that instant recognition is considered to be by far the most accurate and reliable ---google "eye witness testimony" and see for yourself if you dont wish to take my word.
Voice identification is also not likely to be at all accurate when it consists of hearing just a five word sentence on an identity parade.
Why need voice confirmation if you are sure?

[Graham]

Can we please nail the identity parade business once and for all? On the first parade, Alphon was present but of course Hanratty was not, as he hadn't been arrested at that time. Crucially, Valerie did not recognise Alphon as the killer. Possibly she felt obliged to point out someone on the parade, and said that Clark was the man. She need not have picked out anyone. I repeat, the crucial thing here is that she did not recognise Alphon. On the other parade, after considerable deliberation, she identified Hanratty as the murderer. I see no grounds to accuse Valerie of being confused or unreliable. The simple fact is that when confronted with Hanratty, she recognised him.

And if she "thought Michael Clark looked like newspaper pictures of Alphon", then on the first parade she had the man himself in front of her to make a comparison.

Graham

[Natalie Severn]

Hi Norma and Jen,

Jen is right Norma, they did pick Hanratty from a line-up, what you posted is mitigation for the selection, but they absolutely definitely did identify him.

KR,
Vic.

Let us be clear here Vic.
Who are "they"?
Skillett did identify him.Blackhall did not.Therefore they negate each other.
Trower did identify him.But the jury accepted from the measurement demonstrations of the defence,that Trower could not have seen the driver in the way he claimed he had seen him .
Two witnesses from Avondale Crescent were never called---presumed to be part of Sherrard"s assertion that wickedness had taken place over certain "withheld evidence".
Valerie is the only other person who identified him and Valerie identified two men as her rapist,one was Michael Clark -who she thought looked like newspaper pictures of Alphon and the other was James Hanratty.
Yes,Vic,the hanky was subjected to tests but not DNA tests.

[Natalie Severn]

Hi Norma,

Those links go to information on how bacteria can degrade DNA, they have no information whatsoever on how DNA can naturally degrade nor that LCN testing is banned in the States. Have you got a link that does refer to this because even Budowle accepts that LCN has investigatory uses.

KR,
Vic.

Hi Vic,
The fragment of cloth was not kept in the recommended , bacteria free storage conditions at a lab in a South London police station for 31 years was it? Likewise the hanky kept at Bedford police station for even longer.
How can anyone therefore,in all good faith , say they know for certain that neither of these items were ever exposed to the type of contamination that could have given a most misleading result?
We do now know after all that "witness statements" were "tampered with" when Hanratty was in police custody. Modern forensic hand-writing tests reveal that much of what the jury were told that Hanratty had lied about was true--- to quote Michael Sherrard QC on this matter :
"Hanratty would have been proved to have been telling the truth about much of what had been altered page 103 "Wigs and Wherefores;A Biography of Michael Sherrard 2009 .
Is it therefore so far fetched to be concerned about what might have happened to the fate of the two 40 year old pieces of cloth while in police custody?Will we ever be told who actually had access to them? We know the pathologist in December 1961 obtained seminal fluid from Hanratty"s trousers through a wash and it seems quite likely this was put into the vial which was found broken and separated from its rubber plug in amongst the piece of cloth from the knickers that had been placed in a sealed brown envelope of which the edges had come free.So to me and others it seems as though that is one area where DNA could have seeped through onto other locker contents and given a false reading.

We also know already that the hanky was actually handled by Hanratty and others at his trial.


I did have a link to the ban on LCN DNA testing which I will should be able to find tonight, re your question-but I am not in London so I dont have at hand various notes I made at the time, but I think I know which American sites I used and will check them out.What I recall is that in numbers of American States, the Courts of Appeal have been banned from using such LCN DNA test results as were used in the case of James Hanratty in 2002.
Best
Norma

[Victor]

I don't think Sherrard was all that concerned about anything Nudds had to say, but would have been had he been defending Alphon. Nudds is a minor player in this.

Absolutely Graham.

Re: sock-puppets, yes, there is a distinct odour of at least one on this thread at the moment, as I've said before. I wonder if it's possible to get Admin to run a check?

Yes it is, but I can't see the point because they'll only pop back up again under a new ID - better the devil you know.

KR,
Vic.

[Victor]

Quite frankly we do not know where that fragment of cloth had been that was kept in conditions that would now be considered unacceptable.

Hi Norma,

I don't think that embalming a body and burying it for 4,000 years is an acceptable storage condition, but scientist can get DNA profiles from those. They can also get DNA profiles from blood spots on card stored at room temperature for 40 years too.

KR,
Vic.

[Victor]

The fact that essentially the same test proved inconclusive one minute and determines Hantatty's guilt the next should sound alarm bells ringing to anyone who has a sensible bone in their body!

Hi Derrick,

Erm... the fact that one test gave inconclusive results and a more sensitive test yielded a result should not come as a surprise to anyone who has a sensible bone in their body!

This excludes the fact that the evidential sample wasn't stored in an ideal fashion for nigh on 30 years.

See my reply to Norma above - you, oops sorry, Reg posted a link to the Forensic Institute document which says that accepting DNA degredation is scientifically unacceptable. It requires an external trigger.

KR,
Vic.

[Victor]

Three upstanding citizens identified Hanratty either at the scene or later in the murder car; they chose him from a line up as that man. None of them were gangsters. None had incentive or motive to lie.

No,they did not,Jen .You are mistaken here.

Hi Norma and Jen,

Jen is right Norma, they did pick Hanratty from a line-up, what you posted is mitigation for the selection, but they absolutely definitely did identify him.

KR,
Vic.