a6 murder

[Victor]

The LCN DNA test in question is a type of test that not only the FBI refuse to touch because of its unreliability but also most of the European Courts refuse to have anything to do with

Hi Norma,

LCN is permissible as evidence in court in UK, Netherlands and New Zealand, but not the rest of the world. Please can you give me references for the "FBI refuse to touch" quote as I believe it was used in the Zodiac and JonBenet Ramsay cases, but I can't find my references for that at the moment.

and it is getting more precarious ,not less, in terms of its reliability, as each day passes.

Please see post http://forum.casebook.org/showpost.p...postcount=5551 for a ruling from 2009 which states "a challenge to the validity of the method of analysing Low Template DNA by the LCN process should no longer be permitted at trials where the quantity of DNA analysed is above the stochastic threshold of 100-200 picograms in the absence of new scientific evidence"

That means it is getting less precarious not more in terms of reliability.

It has been obvious to me that a tiny 40 year old sample of cloth kept we dont know where but strongly suspected of having been kept in the locker with Hanratty"s trousers and other exhibits from the same trial.

We do know where. It didn't go to trial and was kept by the Metropolitan Police Labs, see paragraphs 113 to 127 of http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2002/1141.html

Originally these trousers were stained with semen.It has been suggested they may have been washed and the wash liquid kept in a vial ,the vial that at some point broke and dispersed its contents over other exhibits including the knicker sample.

The paragraphs above address this too, including "As I examined the item, the piece of blue material from the knickers was in a sealed packet inside the two envelopes. I did not observe any damage to that packaging which I considered likely to be a risk of contamination. As far as I was concerned they were sealed, although the outer envelopes were not sealed there was no indication of any liquid damage on the brown paper envelopes, as might have been expected if a liquid sample had leaked onto them."

The LCN DNA test is very questionable.

The multi-pronged attack is noticeable and has been dismantled section by section.
1. The test is now considered reliable for samples greater than 100-200pg.
2. There is no indication of contamination.
3. Even if there was contamination there is no explanation for the vanishing semen of the rapist unless the rapist was James Hanratty.
4. A seperate explanation needs to be found for the handkerchief which was stored in a different location.

From the conclusion of the judgment (para 211-2):
"In our judgment for reasons we have explained the DNA evidence establishes beyond doubt that James Hanratty was the murderer. 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.

Mr Michael Sherrard apparently opened the defence at the trial by saying appositely that this was a case “sagging with coincidences”. Just let us consider some of the more striking coincidences in the light of the DNA evidence if James Hanratty was not guilty. He was wrongly identified by three witnesses at identification parades; first as the person at the scene of the crime and secondly (by two witnesses) driving a vehicle close to where the vehicle in which the murder was committed was found; he had the same identifying manner of speech as the killer; he stayed in a room the night before the crime from which bullets that had been fired from the murder weapon were recovered; the murder weapon was recovered from a place on a bus which he regarded as a hiding place and the bus followed a route he could well have used; his DNA was found on a piece of material from Valerie Storie’s knickers where it would be expected to be if the appellant was guilty; it was also found on the handkerchief found with the gun. The number of alleged coincidences means that they are not coincidences but overwhelming proof of the safety of the conviction from an evidential perspective."

KR,
Vic.

[Victor]

Valerie testified that she removed her knickers before the rape. Given that the rape took place on the back seat of a MM car, it is strange indeed that no semen at all was found on the seats of the car or the floor.

Hi Julie,

Valerie also testified that she replaced them afterwards, possibly containing any leaking semen and preventing it from getting onto the seat in a significant enough volume to detect.

The car was clean of any sign of the killer, Hanratty or no Hanratty.

Apart from the 11 or 12 sets of fingerprints if it wasn't Hanratty and from para 119 of the judgement:-
"The file containing the fragment from the knickers was discovered in 1991 by Jennifer Wiles. It was still packaged as described except that the cellophane package was no longer intact. Also found in the file were some broken slides and slide holders possibly having contained hairs and fibres collected at the scene of the murder. There were also two polythene bags each containing hairs thought now to have come from Alphon. There was another polythene bag containing a number of bullets and significantly, so Mr Mansfield submits, a polythene bag containing a small rubber bung and fragments of glass including a curved piece suggesting that the polythene bag had at one time contained a glass vial or tube."

In any case, absence of evidence isn't evidence of absense. Details and evidence can be missed or ruled inadmissible or overlooked or too insignificant to be detected, but that does not mean it was never there.

It is interesting to me that all of the physical evidence that 'apparently' links Hanratty to the crime actually left the scene of the crime before it became evidence. Moreover, evidence that could be wiped of evidence (gun, cartridges) was wiped of evidence but was then helpfully left in a room occupied by Hanratty or left with a Hanratty 'signature' (hanky).

Or, as is more likely, was left in a room occupied by Hanratty prior to the murder.

And you wonder why people doubt the DNA evidence?

For me, the reliability and integrity of the LCN test is completely independent of the case under investigation.

The interpretation of the results will obviously depend upon the history of the samples, but the technique itself does not.

KR,
Vic.

[Natalie Severn]

Hi Norma,

Nothing, as I've said a few times, just like Louise Anderson.

KR,
Vic.

You are being disingenuous here Vic.Mrs Anderson did a trade in stolen goods -antique silver and the like.Its a far cry from running a B&B in Rhyl where the service provided was perfectly legitimate.Can you show me evidence of where Mrs Jones evaded tax? Anyhow,
Mrs Jones was not the only person to have seen Hanratty in Rhyl.Margaret Walker came forward during the course of the trial,Christopher Larman came forward and a Mr Trevor Dutton a poultry keeper-Dutton businesses are very well known in Rhyl and Dee side -several branches of the family still run respected businesses in Rhyl.Chester and Deeside.Can we talk about these witnesses as well?

[Natalie Severn]

It is getting rather tedious us both reiterating all this LCN DNA controversy stuff Victor.discuss the matter of LCN DNA with you Victor .The testing done in 2002 has proved,especially since 2002 ,to be a very controversial technique.From now on , for all cases involving LCN,the amount of material must be quantified.This was not donein the A6 case.
All I know about the FBI is that Dr Budowle testified recently-he being a former chief laboratory scientist with the FBI in Washington.Budowle testified that LCN gave too many unreliable results and the FBI would not consider it safe to rely on such evidence.
I strongly believe , as do many others ,that the tiny fragment of 40 year old cloth they tested was contaminated and the test results were unsafe.

[Natalie Severn]

Hi Clive,

These two quotes seem to refer to similar outcomes to me:-



There is no evidence either were investigated nor that they were specifically given immunity, but both had committed crimes and neither were prosecuted.

KR,
Vic.

Mrs Jones had committed no crime nor is there any reference to such.
Mrs Anderson was very well known in the London criminal community as a fence ie a person who buys stolen goods from burglars and resells them.

[Victor]

You are being disingenuous here Vic.Mrs Anderson did a trade in stolen goods -antique silver and the like.Its a far cry from running a B&B in Rhyl where the service provided was perfectly legitimate.Can you show me evidence of where Mrs Jones evaded tax?

Hi Norma,

I apologise for flipping the tables on you here, but can you provide any evidence that Louise aAnderson's "perfectly legitimate" antiques business traded in stolen goods and was well know to the London criminal fraternity? And how that differs from an annual summer illegal influx of B&B residents? My ex-partner investigated purchasing a B&B down here in Brighton and every single one of the ones investigated had a significant proportion of illicit income from cash-paying passing trade.

Ever single allegation you make about the shady behaviour of "antique dealers" apply equally to "B&B Landladies".

Mrs Jones was not the only person to have seen Hanratty in Rhyl.Margaret Walker came forward during the course of the trial,Christopher Larman came forward and a Mr Trevor Dutton a poultry keeper-Dutton businesses are very well known in Rhyl and Dee side -several branches of the family still run respected businesses in Rhyl.Chester and Deeside.Can we talk about these witnesses as well?

Mrs Jones was the only one who gave evidence which was considered and rejected by a jury, presumably because her identification was more suspect than Storie's, Skillet's and Trower's. All 3 of these were 6 months before any of the Rhyl witnesses, and that's Hanratty's fault because he didn't mention it until halfway through the trial.

I don't doubt their character or integrity, I doubt their memories as has been clearly demonstrated in numerous examples, particularly the McGraghan case that you (and Woffinden) highlighted.

KR,
Vic.

[Victor]

It is getting rather tedious us both reiterating all this LCN DNA controversy stuff Victor.discuss the matter of LCN DNA with you Victor .The testing done in 2002 has proved,especially since 2002 ,to be a very controversial technique.From now on , for all cases involving LCN,the amount of material must be quantified.This was not done in the A6 case.

Hi Norma,

I agree, it is getting tedious, and every single example you've quoted is prior to the Caddy review, and the 2009 Reed\Reed and Garmson cases. Give me a contemporary controversy involving LCN.

As I have stated numerous times, and is conveniently overlooked by all detractors of the Hanratty result, the knicker fragment in Hanratty was examined by conventional SGM testing prior to the LCN result which does involve a quantification step, and no-one has revealed that result. If you can find it and state categorically that the DNA on the sample investigated in that test was less than 200pg then you have a case, otherwise you are just repeating yourself and rehashing settled arguments.

All I know about the FBI is that Dr Budowle testified recently-he being a former chief laboratory scientist with the FBI in Washington.Budowle testified that LCN gave too many unreliable results and the FBI would not consider it safe to rely on such evidence.

Is that the entirety of Dr Budowle's quote? Or does the context imply that he would not rely, and furthermore is not permitted to rely, on that result in a prosecution? I specifically cited 2 cases, where admittedly there has been no prosecution, that have used the technique as an investigative tool which directly refutes your statement that the FBI would "not touch" LCN.

I strongly believe , as do many others ,that the tiny fragment of 40 year old cloth they tested was contaminated and the test results were unsafe.

I, and all the DNA experts consulted, cannot contest that the possibility of contamination may have occurred, but there is not a single feasible explanation that would account for the results obtained other than Hanratty raped Storie and left his semen on her knickers.

KR,
Vic.

[Victor]

Mrs Jones had committed no crime nor is there any reference to such.

Yes she did. She admits as such in her evidence. She admits as such in her reluctance to answer the question on oath of what was in her attic bathroom. She admits as such in her proven lies to the judge on oath concerning her conversation with Evans. She was not prosecuted, neither was Anderson.

Mrs Anderson was very well known in the London criminal community as a fence ie a person who buys stolen goods from burglars and resells them.

Is this just Foot\Woffinden rhetoric or have you any solid evidence for this allegation? And how can this compare to a convicted burglar denying he was involved in another crime?

KR,
Vic.

[Victor]

The testing done in 2002 has proved,especially since 2002 ,to be a very controversial technique.From now on , for all cases involving LCN,the amount of material must be quantified.

Furthermore Norma, please would you provide a single example of an investigative tool that has not been refined or improved following subsequent investigation. Take fingerprints for example, early investigations used fingerprints as an investigative tool, and then subsequently fingerprint analysis became a standard prosecution tool. Preliminary DNA by SGM has since been refined and now SGM+ is a standard. Now they are looking at ear impressions.

If you are going to rely on Roy Meadows, and his bogus science then where is the proof that LCN is as dodgy as his speculations?

Skuse springs to mind as an "expert" giving a flawed "expert opinion" too, but these are the exception rather than the rule.

KR,
Vic.

[Natalie Severn]

Victor ,
Your example about your girl friend"s experiences with Brighton landladies? Oh Victor---dont-.Are you really trying to say that someone who gave evidence to say Hanratty had stayed with her during the week beginning 19th August 1961 ,was not to be trusted because your girl friend knew some ladies in Brighton who were landladies who all diddled the tax man? Really?Well so did a host of MP"s but they are still making legislation for us in parliament,But heck-- the point here is that you are just making it up as you go along arent you-?--you dont know whether Mrs Jones was a tax evader or not--- your only evidence is your girl friends suspicions about Brighton landladies!OMG!
I shudder a bit Vic, when I see you compare the evidence of a woman running a B&B in Rhyl with a woman who was known to be a receiver of stolen goods!There isnt a comparison in terms of the law.

I will get back to you on the three citizens from Rhyl who were prepared to act as witnesses on behalf of Hanratty when I next post.Their testimony is every bit as important in this discussion ---and to my mind a lot more credible---- than that of those ex convicts , Nudds and Langdale, who testified so enthusiastically against Hanratty---big time thugs- one a torturer no less both well known and thoroughly disliked even by the standards of the London underworld of the 1950"s and 1960"s because they were also prison grasses.Men who would not have blinked to frame someone---and did---with one earning himself the title of the most hated man in Britain for just such nods and winks to his prison jailers.

[Natalie Severn]

Hi Norma,

I agree, it is getting tedious, and every single example you've quoted is prior to the Caddy review, and the 2009 Reed\Reed and Garmson cases. Give me a contemporary controversy involving LCN.

As I have stated numerous times, and is conveniently overlooked by all detractors of the Hanratty result, the knicker fragment in Hanratty was examined by conventional SGM testing prior to the LCN result which does involve a quantification step, and no-one has revealed that result. If you can find it and state categorically that the DNA on the sample investigated in that test was less than 200pg then you have a case, otherwise you are just repeating yourself and rehashing settled arguments.


Is that the entirety of Dr Budowle's quote? Or does the context imply that he would not rely, and furthermore is not permitted to rely, on that result in a prosecution? I specifically cited 2 cases, where admittedly there has been no prosecution, that have used the technique as an investigative tool which directly refutes your statement that the FBI would "not touch" LCN.


I, and all the DNA experts consulted, cannot contest that the possibility of contamination may have occurred, but there is not a single feasible explanation that would account for the results obtained other than Hanratty raped Storie and left his semen on her knickers.

KR,
Vic.

i didnt know you were a DNA expert Vic? But fine .Its the contamination possibility that most concerns me.
I believe Hanratty was framed.I base this on many other imponderables than the question of a contraversial DNA result viz the complete lack of anything whatever to link him with the car for example. 11 people saw him in Rhyl---nobody saw him about in London at the time.The fact that Nudds was recently released from a nine year prison stretch and was changing his evidence as he went along,evidence that was crucial to convicting Hanratty------about Alphon"s return to the Vienna Hotel, about the number 36a bus and the gun cartridge cases-- planted it seems to me to be found and recognised by the ex gunner ,to implicate either Alphon or Hanratty.
The contamination issue is the one I would argue.
The Vienna Hotel seems more likely to hold the key to the crime.Must go to bed----no sweet dreams if I start thinking about this too much!

Best
Norma

[Limehouse]

Hi Norma,
We do know where. It didn't go to trial and was kept by the Metropolitan Police Labs, see paragraphs 113 to 127 of http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2002/1141.html

The paragraphs above address this too, including "As I examined the item, the piece of blue material from the knickers was in a sealed packet inside the two envelopes. I did not observe any damage to that packaging which I considered likely to be a risk of contamination. As far as I was concerned they were sealed, although the outer envelopes were not sealed there was no indication of any liquid damage on the brown paper envelopes, as might have been expected if a liquid sample had leaked onto them."

KR,
Vic.

Morning Vic,

Regardless of how the garments were stored during or after the trial, it is possible, even likely, that the police stored these garments together after they had been obtained, but prior to the trial.

Additionally, regardless of whether they were sealed when found, we have no knowledge of how much cross contamination happened during the process of packing up these garments.

[Limehouse]

You are being disingenuous here Vic.Mrs Anderson did a trade in stolen goods -antique silver and the like.Its a far cry from running a B&B in Rhyl where the service provided was perfectly legitimate.Can you show me evidence of where Mrs Jones evaded tax? Anyhow,
Mrs Jones was not the only person to have seen Hanratty in Rhyl.Margaret Walker came forward during the course of the trial,Christopher Larman came forward and a Mr Trevor Dutton a poultry keeper-Dutton businesses are very well known in Rhyl and Dee side -several branches of the family still run respected businesses in Rhyl.Chester and Deeside.Can we talk about these witnesses as well?

Hi Norma,

Good points - and where are the witnesses who saw Hanratty anywhere near the scene of the crime prior the the attack?

Not only was Anderson a receiver, she received stolen goods from the very man she was testifying against in court. In the spacew of days, she went from being a friend, confident enough to have him sleep in her home, to a hostile witness, willing to provide evidence that would send a man to the gallows.

It's good to have you on board as the doubters were getting thin on the ground.

[Victor]

Are you really trying to say that someone who gave evidence to say Hanratty had stayed with her during the week beginning 19th August 1961 ,was not to be trusted because your girl friend knew some ladies in Brighton who were landladies who all diddled the tax man? Really?

Hi Norma,

Not at all, I'm using my knowledge and experiences to support an established fact that was admitted by Mrs Jones on oath that her business wasn't wholely legitimate. Dismissing my experiences so offhandedly and implying that it is the sole or major reason for the belief is putting the cart before the horse.

Well so did a host of MP"s but they are still making legislation for us in parliament,But heck-- the point here is that you are just making it up as you go along arent you-?--you dont know whether Mrs Jones was a tax evader or not--- your only evidence is your girl friends suspicions about Brighton landladies!OMG!

Hmmm... I could say the same about your demonisation of Anderson. I deliberately compared her to "Miracle" Jones and Hanratty himself because you were denegrating the prosecution witnesses for their characters to undermine the validity of their evidence and I was wondering why the same reasoning wouldn't apply to Jones and Hanratty.

I shudder a bit Vic, when I see you compare the evidence of a woman running a B&B in Rhyl with a woman who was known to be a receiver of stolen goods!There isnt a comparison in terms of the law.

"known to be a receiver of stolen goods" - evidence please. Louise Anderson was never prosecuted for this heinous crime.

Lots of small business owners habitually cut corners in order to minimise costs and maximise profits - which is exactly what Mrs Jones was doing. Lots of people receive stolen goods or cheap booze and fags smuggled from the continent. What's the big difference?

I will get back to you on the three citizens from Rhyl who were prepared to act as witnesses on behalf of Hanratty when I next post.Their testimony is every bit as important in this discussion ---and to my mind a lot more credible---- than that of those ex convicts , Nudds and Langdale, who testified so enthusiastically against Hanratty---big time thugs- one a torturer no less both well known and thoroughly disliked even by the standards of the London underworld of the 1950"s and 1960"s because they were also prison grasses.Men who would not have blinked to frame someone---and did---with one earning himself the title of the most hated man in Britain for just such nods and winks to his prison jailers.

As I pointed out earlier, all the Rhyl witnesses hinge upon their identification of Hanratty, and you were the one highlighting McGranaghan and the Turnbull guidelines.

KR,
Vic.

[Victor]

i didnt know you were a DNA expert Vic? But fine .Its the contamination possibility that most concerns me.

Hi Norma,

Why do I need to be a DNA expert to quote contemporary legal judgments to refute your comments?

And actually I'm a graduate chemist, which isn't in the same league as experimental geneticists, but is relevent.

I believe Hanratty was framed.I base this on many other imponderables than the question of a contraversial DNA result viz the complete lack of anything whatever to link him with the car for example.

Stating your beliefs is more than welcome, but it's contemporary evidence of the controversy concerning DNA results that cuts the mustard.

As for lack of scene of crime evidence, other than the dead body, blood-soaked back seat, surviving witness with semen on her knickers, that would apply equally to whoever was prosecuted and in itself means very little. It's back to the mantra "Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence".

11 people saw him in Rhyl---nobody saw him about in London at the time.

Again, no-one saw the gunman before he knocked on the moggy window, whoever it was (and I believe it was Hanratty).

The fact that Nudds was recently released from a nine year prison stretch and was changing his evidence as he went along,evidence that was crucial to convicting Hanratty

Nudds changed his evidence once, and reverted back to his original account once.

the gun cartridge cases-- planted it seems to me to be found and recognised by the ex gunner ,to implicate either Alphon or Hanratty.

That's your suspicion, one shared by a number of people, but it doesn't stand up to scrutiny. The major issue is why would someone plant cartridge cases from the murder weapon in a hotel whose only connection to the crime at that point in time was that it was the previous residence of one of a number of men reported for behaving suspiciously in a different hotel? That's the most tenuous of links as it is, but then we have to magnify the case to conspiracy theory levels to account for the corroborating DNA from semen in the victims underwear. And just how would that link in with massive "coincidence" that Hanratty's handkerchief had already been found wrapped round the murder weapon?

I go back to the judgment summary..."The number of alleged coincidences means that they are not coincidences but overwhelming proof of the safety of the conviction from an evidential perspective."

The contamination issue is the one I would argue.

The contamination issue does not explain the lack of a DNA profile from the rapists semen, unless Hanratty was the rapist.

KR,
Vic.
B.Sc. Hons. Ebor.