a6 murder

[SteveS]

I haven't dismissed any ruling, I have accepted the CCRC judgment.

I am glad to hear that Victor.

Welcome aboard at last to the JimDidNotDoIt camp.

As you have accepted the CCRC judgement then you must know that the CCRC felt that there was enough evidence to send the case back to the CA and that the conviction should be quashed. Why spend 2 years and shed loads of dosh otherwise. I am sure that you feel it was money well spent eh?

It must have been a hard road for you Vic but you got there in the end me old mucker. Good on yer.

[Tony]

Hi Tony,

My recollection of trying to buy something on ebay was that you could set up a standing search so that when whatever interested you was listed you received an email. I think you can still do this.

In the 'old days' you would now know who had won the auction, but I think nowadays his indentity is hidden and only revealed if he leaves feedback for the seller. If he does you should be able to contact him direct.

Ron

Hello Ron,

If you know how to do that then please do it for me. If the buyer wants to read it and then sell it on to me at a very handsome profit he can do.


Also to you Andrew: if you were ‘watching’ this item you will know the seller. Perhaps you could send him a message that you know someone who is very interested in the item but was away at the time of the auction. Could you contact the seller, or let me have the details, and tell him the same thing. He could contact the buyer and say there is someone prepared to pay a premium to get the document after he has read it.

If you send me a PM I will let you have my email address.

Thank you both.

Tony.

[RonIpstone]

Hi Tony,

Sorry to get your hopes up, but the buyer (Catindian) has now received the book and posted his feedback for the seller (Redlaw999) in which he describes the book as a "Suberb item", unfortunately ebay have now stopped the messaging service between members unless there is an open transaction.

In other words, with a completed transaction the buyer (and probably other bidders) and seller can contact each other but no one else can. With an unfinished auction potential bidders can ask the seller a question. So the only way of getting in touch with Redlaw999 is to wait for him to sell another item (he seems to specialise in selling 'antique' police memorabilia) and send him a message then. He does not have any items for sale at present.

It seems pretty hopeless trying to get in touch with the buyer as although he has a feedback score of 452 he never appears to have sold anything through ebay.

I have added both to my list of favourite sellers and will try and contact them. In the first instance I would just send a link to this forum to the seller and ask that he forwards it to the buyer so that he can take a look at the forum with a view to sharing whatever gems might be hidden in the notebook. If he looks at the forum he should get the drift that others might be interested in buying his book, although from his ebay record he does not seem to be much of a seller.

Ron

[Victor]

If the appeal court found it:

"...impossible to understand how he had sufficient expertise to be able to give evidence in R v Hoey, let alone to assist in the attack made in that case on the LCN process."

then what use would it do the Caddy Review to have consulted him on the process of LCN in the first place when he plainly had such little expertise according to the CA? Where does that leave the integrity of the Caddy Review if they are willing to call on any person that the CA doubts as being credible.

Hi Steve,

Are you even reading the material in the links you are posting? Try reading the end of the sentence you've half-quoted (despite incorrectly inserting a full stop)...he has given evidence in so many Low Template DNA cases since then on the strength of the observations in R v Hoey that he has acquired a degree of experience from these cases, his discussion with others and his reading of papers

Seeing as the CA relied totally on the Caddy Review it takes circular reasoning and contradiction to the Champions League level of nonsense.

The only circular reasoning I can see is yours.

Victor you said that Jamieson refused to participate in the Caddy Review, but I cannot find that explanantion used anywhere. Could you give me a reference to it please for my records?

Para 108 of the Reed judgment says:-
We are satisfied that he was invited to contribute to the review by Professor Caddy, but did not do so for reasons which did not seem to us to be at all convincing. When the review was published, the Forensic Institute published a press release which stated that the review had not consulted anyone who had expressed a contrary opinion on the FSS's LCN process and "spoke only to the organisations selling the technique" and to the police as "customers". A similar passage appears in a paper entitled Fit for Purpose: The Review of Low Template DNA written by Professor Jamieson and Dr Rhonda Wheate and published in Barrister Magazine in 2008. These were, in our judgement, not only inaccurate statements, but statements that appeared to call into question the integrity of both the review by Professor Caddy and the providers of processes of Low Template DNA analysis. There is no foundation for these statements. We are satisfied that the review was carried out with complete integrity. There is no evidence whatsoever to call into question the good faith or integrity of the suppliers of processes for analysing Low Template DNA. The fact that Professor Jamieson, in the light of all the material he has now seen, no longer calls into question the validity of the process where the quantity is above the stochastic threshold, provides considerable mitigation for statements that in our view should never have been made and which, we were told, have now been withdrawn.

Jamieson's comments on the review not consulting dissenting views is correct and valid. As we have seen The Caddy Review's remit did not include consulting anyone other than the suppliers (notably the FSS) and the customers (The Police).

Absolute rubbish, in the quote above Jamieson has withdrawn his objections to the Caddy Review.

Yet Jamieson has clearly got what he wanted anyway and that is the exposure of LCN as being an unreliable technique below the stochastic threshold for single samples.

That's not what has happened, LCN is as reliable as SGM+ above 200pg, and can still be given as evidence below 200pg!

Even so, it was not surprising that the SGM+ test produced a similar result; as the FSS had carried out the wrong test in the first place. The quantity was 2.5ng. Well done FSS. Perhaps they should be made to pay the costs of the appeal for wasting everybody's time. But no, Valerie Tomlinson was praised as being a very impressive witness with shed loads of experience. Even so she dropped a real clanger in the Reed case.

Well done, SGM+ gives a similar result to LCN, so LCN is as relieble as SGM+ above 200pg.

As the amount of DNA wasn't quantified, noone could know for certain whether SGM+ would give a profile, so they opted for the most sensitive technique they could, surely that's common sense. Fortunately there was enough DNA for SGM+ but that couldn't be known until that was looked for.

As for the rest then, to simplify - please give me your views on the mixed sample in Garmson and your concerns over mistakes made at trial and how they should be rectified. At present the CA just say, basically, hard cheese sonny you should have challenged it first time around now go and rot in jail for a few more years.

Which mixed sample? There were 4, all of which had the victim's profile and partial Garmson profiles.

And it doesn't mean that either was above 100pg so it is pointless for you to just speculate and try to make some kind of fact out of fancy.

Prize winning quote, because you then go on to speculate madly...

Here are a few more issues for you that have not been disclosed and which you may care to make speculaive claims for the validity of LCN in Hanratty:
1) How many loci were examined? 4? Maybe. 6, Quite possibly. 10? Maybe. Who knows? But the fewer the number the less confident one can be over match possibilities.
2) The RFU level implemented. This would have to be lowered to pick up the original low level of template. Who knows what it was.
3) Alleles discounted by the consensus over the aliquot runs tested.
4) Alleles added that the interpretor would have expected due to allelic drop out.

This data has not been made publicly available so no real evaluation can be made until it can be looked at again.

1) 10
2) The appropriate level for the results, judged on a case-by-case basis.

I agree with Woffinden. He may be biased but he is certainly biased for the side of common sense and reason as far as this judgement is concerned and the problems that still exist in the Hanratty case.

You think it's common sense to have rapists and murderers wandering the streets, free to attack and kill again? Common sense is to protect the public by locking them up.

KR,
Vic.

ps.

As you have accepted the CCRC judgement then you must know that the CCRC felt that there was enough evidence to send the case back to the CA and that the conviction should be quashed.

Erm...no, they sent it to be examined again, but did not quash the conviction.

[jimarilyn]

Hi Steve,

Some very impressive posts indeed. Great work.
Good luck to the Gooners, it was a very close match last night but you just about edged it.

Love your very apt signature by the way.

[Victor]

In fact here are the terms of reference for the [Caddy] Review:

The terms of reference given to this review panel are:
i). To examine low template DNA profiling techniques, including the Low Copy Number (LCN) technique employed by the Forensic Science Service Ltd (FSS), and analogous processes used by other providers of DNA profiling services to the UK Criminal Justice System (CJS), to generate DNA profiles from samples which may not yield useable results from the standard DNA profiling (termed SGM Plus® process discussed in section 1.4). This is to include processes which seek to obtain profiles from DNA samples below 200 picogram (pg) and the application of supra-28 cycle amplification;
ii). To advise upon the scientific validity of those techniques, having regard to any novel issues raised (in comparison with accepted SGM Plus® techniques) and the variations in approach adopted by different providers, recommending best practice in the light of current scientific knowledge and opinion;
iii). To comment upon the interpretation of the results and how they should be presented to the customer and to the court in any criminal proceedings;
iv). To advise upon the creation of a national minimum technical standard for low template DNA analysis, to include extraction, quantification/dilution and interpretation criteria; and
v). To make other relevant recommendations.

(found here http://mccannfiles.com/id190.html)

Not even in the first embolded passage does it state that outside views were to be consulted.
Then in the second emboldened passage we learn that they would not have called on experts such as Budowle, Krane, Thompson et al who are from other jurisdictions. Completely insular remit what?

Hi Steve,

Your selective reading and interpretation is getting worse...

1. The first emboldened passage does state that outside views were to be consulted here... "in the light of current scientific knowledge and opinion"

2. The second emboldened passage talks about the creation of a national standard, i.e., a standard which all companies which provide Forensic Examinations (no matter where in the world they are) have to meet in order for the results to be permissible in an UK court. Therefore there is no reason whatsoever for them not to accept current scientific opinion from anyone.

KR,
Vic.

[P.L.A]

My interpretation of the judgement is that the Court of Appeal was satisfied Hanratty received a fair trial and the evidence against him was substantial. It seems to me that the appeal would have failed irrespective of the DNA.

105) Applying this reasoning we came to the conclusion that the DNA evidence on this appeal is evidence which we are entitled to admit under section 23. Furthermore we conclude that in our discretion we should admit the evidence while recognising;

(1) that its weight, if any, will depend on whether the appellant may be right that the explanation for the DNA findings is contamination.

(2) that if the appellant is able to show that because of lack of disclosure or the misdirections in the summing up the trial was still fatally flawed the DNA evidence will not rescue the conviction.

208) In our judgment if the non-directions stood alone, even without the DNA evidence, they would not justify the quashing of the conviction.

211) The DNA evidence made what was a strong case even stronger. Equally the strength of the evidence overall pointing to the guilt of the appellant supports our conclusion as to the DNA.

212) The number of alleged coincidences means that they are not coincidences but overwhelming proof of the safety of the conviction from an evidential perspective. (It should be stated that some of the coincidences quoted by the judges related to the DNA evidence)

Whether you agree with the court or not, their ruling seems to conflict with the impression Woffinden is trying to give in his recent article.

Peter.

[jimarilyn]

re. Police Note Book

This might sound a naive question but wouldn't an authentic 1961 Police Note Book on James Hanratty/Ryan form part of the (much hidden) police records relating to the A6 murder ? If so how was it possible to sell such an item on E-Bay 49 years later ? Perhaps Catindian has become an unwitting receiver of stolen goods. What chance I wonder of the 1962 Trial Transcript becoming available as an item on E-Bay ? Or Frederick Charles France's abundant suicide notes ?

A wishful thinker.

[larue]

This might sound a naive question but wouldn't an authentic 1961 Police Note Book on James Hanratty/Ryan form part of the (much hidden) police records relating to the A6 murder ? If so how was it possible to sell such an item on E-Bay 49 years later ? Perhaps Catindian has become an unwitting receiver of stolen goods. What chance I wonder of the 1962 Trial Transcript becoming available as an item on E-Bay ? Or Frederick Charles France's abundant suicide notes ?

A wishful thinker.

the provenance of this item would be of interest, it's either genuine or it aint. if genuine, it could prove to be of great informational value, especially if the famous traffic census form was tucked inside. if it's a fake, [ and why should anyone try to fake such a relatively obscure thing ]then the faker must be real gutted that it did'nt quite make thirteen quid!!!!

i'd for one would still be interested to read through it though

[larue]

1. The first emboldened passage does state that outside views were to be consulted here... "in the light of current scientific knowledge and opinion"

2. The second emboldened passage talks about the creation of a national standard, i.e., a standard which all companies which provide Forensic Examinations (no matter where in the world they are) have to meet in order for the results to be permissible in an UK court. Therefore there is no reason whatsoever for them not to accept current scientific opinion from anyone.

KR,
Vic.

hi Steve and Vic

while i am happy to admit that most of this guff aboot dna goes right over my head, i do find some of the terminology that i can understand to be rather dubious...

in paragraph 1 f'rinstace, the statement "in the light of current scientific knowledge and opinion" is meaningless, because it does not identify any individual or organization whose knowledge and opinion is being referenced. it reminds me of those phrases so beloved of the flyingsaucerists and bermudatriangleists, who state that 'scientists have not yet discovered' and 'some people believe that it might be'. the first implies that these 'scientists' are working on the case, when in truth this may or may not be true, no identities are given, the second statement is just bunkum, designed to be a 'get out clause' to save embarrasement to the authors when they are called into question.

a minimum standard of qualification and body of knowledge would surely be a pre-requisite for any believeable official body or organization.


as for paragraph 2, that would be an international standard, would'nt it? and i rather doubt that current scientific opinion from anyone would be accepted

[Tony]

This might sound a naive question but wouldn't an authentic 1961 Police Note Book on James Hanratty/Ryan form part of the (much hidden) police records relating to the A6 murder ? If so how was it possible to sell such an item on E-Bay 49 years later ? Perhaps Catindian has become an unwitting receiver of stolen goods. What chance I wonder of the 1962 Trial Transcript becoming available as an item on E-Bay ? Or Frederick Charles France's abundant suicide notes ?

A wishful thinker.

I’ll tell you something, James,

You have now just opened up a whole new can of worms.

Ebay crime. Ey by gum whatever next in this A6 case?

Tell you what though mate if there is something within those documents that points in the favour of JH poor old Vic will have a fit.
The revealer of this new information will be branded the new Mrs Jones, master criminal, the very devil incarnate.

I really hope so. I can’t wait.

Tony

[jimarilyn]

I’ll tell you something, James,

You have now just opened up a whole new can of worms.

Ebay crime. Ey by gum whatever next in this A6 case?

Tell you what though mate if there is something within those documents that points in the favour of JH poor old Vic will have a fit.
The revealer of this new information will be branded the new Mrs Jones, master criminal, the very devil incarnate.

I really hope so. I can’t wait.

Tony

Like your goodself Tony I always miss out on these kind of things when they become available on E-Bay.
I've lost count of the number of times I've keyed in "A6 Murder", "Deadman's Hill" and "Peter Alphon" in the search box on E-bay. All the usual books and magazines pop up (apart from Jean Justice's two books and Lord Russell's).
Nothing ever comes up for "Queen's" magazine or "Today" magazine however.

It would seem that the seller of this item had some connection with Wiltshire Police, going by the nature of some of his previous transactions. Maybe E-Bay should be renamed Smuggler's Bay.

Perhaps my fictitious girlfriend Pamela (Louise's daughter) and I can do an E-BayWatch each day to minimise the chances of missing out on such stuff. Anyway I'll keep you abreast of any promising developments.

[larue]

What chance I wonder of the 1962 Trial Transcript becoming available as an item on E-Bay ?

A wishful thinker.

hi jimarilyn

not as remote a possibility as one might think. according to Louis Blom-Cooper's book, there were several copies in existance during the trial, [appended daily, one would assume] the judge had one, as did both counsels and solicitors. one [incomplete] copy exists still, at bedford assizes, so, where the others went is anybody's guess. tied up with a pretty red ribbon on a dusty shelf in chambers, no doubt, maybe waiting for the great clear-out.
keep watching ebay. one never knows?

of course, as has already been referred to, rightful ownership of such items might be difficult to establish, but possesion is 9 points of the law, or somesuch...

[john]

E Bay Book

If the book is genuine and the notes written in it are genuine-dependent on the date, the revelation about the note to look out for Hanratty would be the MOST sensational thing to ever be discovered.

If this is dated before the Vienna and Charles Frances' running to the Police, then even the DNA's must ask and confront the the question-how did the Police know this when there was not a scrap of evidence before the Vienna Hotel discoveries to link 'Ryan' to the murder let alone the real name.

What psychic visions were the Police employing in in August to know it was Hanrattyand the same crystal ball was loaned to Janet Gregsten at Maida Vale to know it was Hanratty the murderer in front of her and William Ewer.

I have to say it seems very fishy-a book on sale on e bay that contains the potentially most damaging revelation about Valerie Storie's first statement via John Kerr appearing after 48 years 'lost' and the police naming Hanratty in a little Police Book ahead of everything else.

All efforts should be made to ascertain from the buyer how authentic is it and how authentic are the typed notes.

I remain sceptical. much as I would love it to be accurate.

[jimarilyn]

I remain sceptical. much as I would love it to be accurate.

Me too John. Your very pertinent post just about sums up my own feeings. Imagine how much the book coud have fetched at Sotheby's !