a6 murder

[Victor]

So, the rapist's DNA COULD be obliterated by a 'subsequent event' such as contamination, evaporation, or such like??

Hi Julie,

You have taken my quote out of context. I was referring to fibres being brushed away, fingerprints being rubbed out, footprints being overlaid, or DNA being washed away. However, spefically not the selective removal of Hanratty's semen from Valerie's knickers whilst leaving Gregsten's semen and Valerie's vaginal fluids, that'd be equivalent to blowing on a large heap of 100's and 1000's and only removing one colour. It's all or nothing as I'm sure you appreciate.

KR,
Vic.

[Victor]

All this is to be found in the book "Proved Innocent" by Gerry Conlan and copies of the book are in most UK libraries.

Hi Norma,

Yes miscarriages do occasionally occur, and as Caz pointed out most are eventually recognised and rectified (to some degree). Derek Bentley, Sean Hodgson, Stefan Kiszko, &tc. If Hanratty was innocent then the appeal would have quashed his conviction too. He wasn't, it didn't.

In the case of James Hanratty I cited a document that a perfectly innocent witness, the first man to find Valerie Storie ,John Kerr,then a young student at Oxford University,had passed to the police containing notes he made about Valerie Storie"s parent"s address and her description of the gunman.This description never made its way to court---they said it had never been given to them but bits of it were later found with somebody else"s annotations on it----and just like Mrs Jones Mr Kerr was made to look as though he was inventing it.

John Kerr is an extremely unreliable witness as has been clearly demonstrated by the "Mary" incident, therefore his insistence that he gave his notes to a police officer is suspect too. Bits of it were not later found.

Janet Gregsten was not prepared to divorce her husband .Mike had left her when she was pregnant with their second son,the year before the murder, and he returned home only shortly before his birth.Janet Gregsten said:"I wont say I wasnt affected by them [the affairs]I was-but I wasnt jealous.{Presumably the interviewer had asked her if she was jealous and she had denied it-extraordinary if she wasnt upset or jealous I must say-but then people may have begun to think she had been a jealous , vengeful wife and that would never have done----if you think about it Vic!}

That quote from Janet is the same as the one I reproduced earlier from Woffinden...

You are assuming a lot to say that there was any deceit in the Gregsten marriage, see page 16 of Woffinden...
"'It wasn't the first affair Mike had had' Janet Gresten confirmed. ' I won't say I wasn't affected by them. I was, but I wasn't jealous. Sexually, we weren't marvellous together. I knew I wasn't giving Mike the sex he needed. So I understood why he was going elsewhere.'"

She explicitly says she understood Mike getting sexual fulfillment elsewhere.

KR,
Vic.

[Natalie Severn]

Victor,
The criticism on the reliability of LCN DNA tests [filed in the FBI"s research papers] and which I read this morning on the internet, actually focusses precisely on the inability of the LCN tests to evaluate such mixed secretions as Gregsten"s /Storie"s /the rapist"s found on the old exhibit of sample cloth.It stated such testing would be virtually pointless with regards to reliable results and use in court-[for more info on where to find article see my post above. This is not about contamination which was very likely to have happened as well but about what the tests have previously falsely claimed.

[Victor]

There is NO evidence what so ever that the slugs were left there the night before the murder. 'Very probably' is not acceptable evidence when a man's life is at risk.

Hi Julie,

It's the increasing connections between Hanratty and the murder that corroborate eachother and make it very probable. If you take each piece of evidence in isolation then it's easier to doubt.

Re the hanky, it is worth noting that testimony shows Hanratty carried a SPARE hanky to wipe down surfaces, and handle stolen goods. He felt this was safer than being found with gloves if stopped and searched. If Hanratty had used a hanky to dispose of the gun, it would have been a spare hanky, not one covered in his mucus. To me, the hanky is a dead give away that he did not dispose of the gun himself.

Why the spare, surely he'd be more likely to use the first one he came across - the one he'd used before for it's more traditional purpose.

Re accents, are we to believe that Hanratty was the only man in southern England that night sporting a cockney accent?

Absolutely not, but the only one to leave his semen in the victim's underwear.

KR,
Vic.

[Victor]

a]Can you give your source for this Victor as it contradicts Woffinden"s claim about the way the sample appeared in the forensic science laboratory in Lambeth in 1991?

Hi Norma,

The judgment. Paragraph 116.
"As a result of correspondence between James Hanratty’s then solicitors and the DPP, arrangements were made for the pathologist, Dr Grant, to have access to James Hanratty’s intimate samples and also to certain of the exhibits. It appears from the records that Dr Grant examined the green jacket and trousers on 28 December 1961 and Valerie Storie’s slips and knickers the following day. It was on this latter occasion that a portion of the crotch area of the knickers was removed and thereafter, as seems clear, stored separately from the other exhibits including the knickers from which it had been excised. As also seems clear, a fragment of the excised portion was retained by the laboratory having first been placed in a small envelope made of cellophane and sellotape which was in turn put into a small brown envelope and the small envelope into a larger envelope before being treasury tagged to a laboratory file. It was so placed when rediscovered in 1991."

KR,
Vic.

[Natalie Severn]

Hi Norma,

Yes miscarriages do occasionally occur, and as Caz pointed out most are eventually recognised and rectified (to some degree). Derek Bentley, Sean Hodgson, Stefan Kiszko, &tc. If Hanratty was innocent then the appeal would have quashed his conviction too. He wasn't, it didn't.


John Kerr is an extremely unreliable witness as has been clearly demonstrated by the "Mary" incident, therefore his insistence that he gave his notes to a police officer is suspect too. Bits of it were not later found.


That quote from Janet is the same as the one I reproduced earlier from Woffinden...

She explicitly says she understood Mike getting sexual fulfillment elsewhere.

KR,
Vic.

Vic,
I am off out in a minute but what is so glaringly obvious to any rational person is that to allow for Hanratty being innocent, the state might well have to arrest and charge for murder and rape another suspect---such as Alphon who was arrested and released on Valerie Storie"s failed identification.This would clearly present the most monumental difficulties,given they had already executed one man for the crime.it wasnt like Timothy Evans"s "Pardon".Christie the serial killer he was lodging with [who murdered his wife] hadalso obviously murdered the baby--along with goodness knows how many other people.Well Christie was executed so the problem of a "re-arrest" and high drama court case would not arise.
If you happen to think----or anyone happens to think,it was some kind of piece of cake,fighting for justice for the Guildford Four you are totally mistaken.Read the book please---Ditto the Birmingham Six who were also very fortunate to have this " world class lawyer" on their case in Gareth Peirce.
Moreover of crucial,not to say vital importance, is the fact that these men were alive and kicking----and therefore importantly able to defend themselves.Had they been tried in 1961 they would all have been hanged for murder and dead and buried so its very unlikely the information that enabled their sentences to be quashed would ever have come to light.Charles Burke"s alibi would almost certainly never have come to light.


Re Janet Gregsten.She may well have said it.It contradicts what she did though doesnt it! She had another ,second baby,she stayed with him and flatly refused to divorce him---and she said they were working things through and she believed he loved her.

[Natalie Severn]

Thanks Victor.It seems to me that storage techniques were nothing like as sophisticated in 1961as how come "a small sample was found in a Lambeth drawer,stapled to a card?

I also very much look forward to your thoughts on the way the Guilford Four were framed for murder.By witheld evidence from the defence by the prosecution .All found on the private file I referred to above with the alibi"s name written inside it --and the label on this file which stated it was not to be shown to the defence.All uncovered and causing the entire case against them to collapse. If you havent the book go get it from the library Victor!

[Victor]

The criticism on the reliability of LCN DNA tests [filed in the FBI"s research papers] and which I read this morning on the internet, actually focusses precisely on the inability of the LCN tests to evaluate such mixed secretions as Gregsten"s /Storie"s /the rapist"s found on the old exhibit of sample cloth.It stated such testing would be virtually pointless with regards to reliable results and use in court-for more info on where to find article see my post above. This is not about contamination which was very likely to have happened as well but about what the tests have previously falsely claimed.

Hi Norma,

I presume you are referring to your post entitled "Advice given to FBI by DNA scientists publication number01-26" #5721 which starts "continued from above", however, there is no obvious preceeding post. Have you got a link for that document, and a date? I found this http://www.justice.gov/oig/special/0405/index.htm dated May 2004 but it mainly refers to misconduct by an FBI officer who falsely claimed to be running blanks, however, it has an extensive overview of DNA testing.

A second point is that the handkerchief was not a mixed profile, it contained Hanratty's DNA only, but for obvious reasons more attention is focussed on the knickers as that absolutely links Hanratty to the rape of Valerie. On the DNA thread there is an article posted by Reg and several discussions of the possibility of seperating the DNA from the knicker fragment into 2 bits - sperm heads in one, and everything else in the second - in which case there would be no mixed profile to interpret, and a line from the judgment about all the experts including the defence experts accepting that any contamination would have to be semen suggests that this separation technique may have been used. I can think of no other sensible explanation for the defence experts accepting that.

A lot of these issues have been thrashed out on the DNA thread http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=1351 the first few posts contain many relevent links.

KR,
Vic.

[Victor]

I am off out in a minute but what is so glaringly obvious to any rational person is that to allow for Hanratty being innocent, the state might well have to arrest and charge for murder and rape another suspect---such as Alphon who was arrested and released on Valerie Storie"s failed identification.This would clearly present the most monumental difficulties,given they had already executed one man for the crime.

Hi Norma,

Sion Jenkins! From http://www.justiceforsionjenkins.org.uk/grounds.html
Grounds for Unease in 2007 : The claim by Sussex police that there are no grounds for re-opening the investigation triggers many questions.

Derek Bentley?

Secondly, Alphon died in January 2009 (according to http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion...r-1570726.html )

Re Janet Gregsten.She may well have said it.It contradicts what she did though doesnt it! She had another ,second baby,she stayed with him and flatly refused to divorce him---and she said they were working things through and she believed he loved her.

I don't agree. She had a lower sex drive than her husband, so accepted that he satisified his need with additional women. A state of affairs commonly referred to with the word "understanding". Personally I don't agree with polygamy, but it undeniably exists, and some argue it works well because of the assumption that men have higher sex drives\sexual needs than women.

KR,
Vic.

[Natalie Severn]

see-Low copy number-consideration and caution+ address

Hi Norma,

I presume you are referring to your post entitled "Advice given to FBI by DNA scientists publication number01-26" #5721 which starts "continued from above", however, there is no obvious preceeding post. Have you got a link for that document, and a date? I found this http://www.justice.gov/oig/special/0405/index.htm dated May 2004 but it mainly refers to misconduct by an FBI officer who falsely claimed to be running blanks, however, it has an extensive overview of DNA testing.

A second point is that the handkerchief was not a mixed profile, it contained Hanratty's DNA only, but for obvious reasons more attention is focussed on the knickers as that absolutely links Hanratty to the rape of Valerie. On the DNA thread there is an article posted by Reg and several discussions of the possibility of seperating the DNA from the knicker fragment into 2 bits - sperm heads in one, and everything else in the second - in which case there would be no mixed profile to interpret, and a line from the judgment about all the experts including the defence experts accepting that any contamination would have to be semen suggests that this separation technique may have been used. I can think of no other sensible explanation for the defence experts accepting that.

A lot of these issues have been thrashed out on the DNA thread http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=1351 the first few posts contain many relevent links.

KR,
Vic.

Hi Vic,
I have been reminded several times about how many times such points have been "thrashed out" previously on this thread.May I say it doesnt actually compare with how many times the images of the remains of poor Mary Kelly have been "examined",how many times the Swanson "marginalia and end notes" have been addressed-or the bogus Maybrick Diaries defended?

If you dont want to discuss it ,again,with me then dont Victor.Have a break from it.

My computer being awry I can only give you the specific address of the information as follows:

Title of link:
"Low Copy Number-consideration and caution" Bruce Budowle-Laboratory Division FBI Washington
The Vic,you need to scroll down to third paragraph entitled:
Limitations and ConsiderationsIt begins:"Consistency and reproduction requirements of STR typing.
Best Norma

[Natalie Severn]

Victor,
Is it going to be possible to discuss basis of the miscarriages of justice that happened in the Guildford Four Case ,which I have researched and which pertain to the consequences of the "witheld evidence" in their original trial or not?

Its a bit strong to dismissively refer me to "Bentley" or the other case you provide a link to .I am not really wanting to digress like this about whether or not every case of miscarriage of justice ends up in failure,---clearly the Guildford Four and Birmingham Six cases were eventually successful.
What I wanted to do was to focus on those cases where ,because of witheld evidence or police or prosecution failure to disclose vital evidence a case was " rigged "against those convicted----in the case of the Guildford Four after serving 15 years in jail they were allowed to walk free and have their sentence quashed.I believe there is powerful information in the case against Hanratty that there were numerous instances of police failure to disclose vital evidence.
Thanks
Norma

[Victor]

I have been reminded several times about how many times such points have been "thrashed out" previously on this thread.
[...]
If you dont want to discuss it ,again,with me then dont Victor.Have a break from it.

Hi Norma,

I apologise if my comments caused offense, all I intended to convey was that many people have grown weary of the DNA debate circling on this thread and it would be considerate to move those parts of the discussion to the other thread where those not interested do not have to trawl through it.

Title of link: "Low Copy Number-consideration and caution" Bruce Budowle-Laboratory Division FBI Washington
The Vic,you need to scroll down to third paragraph entitled:
Limitations and Considerations It begins:"Consistency and reproduction requirements of STR typing.

Here -> http://www.promega.com/geneticidproc...ts/budowle.pdf

The 2nd paragraph of that section starts in an interesting way that contradicts your previous comment about the FBI "not touch"-ing LCN.
"However, there may be some limited applications where LCN analysis is warranted, such as some investigative lead situations"

KR,
Vic.

[Victor]

Is it going to be possible to discuss basis of the miscarriages of justice that happened in the Guildford Four Case ,which I have researched and which pertain to the consequences of the "witheld evidence" in their original trial or not?

Hi Norma,

I have only briefly read of the Guildford Four case and will need to do some further investigation before I can respond directly. In general, I agree that investigators can prejudice a case if they conceal information.

Its a bit strong to dismissively refer me to "Bentley" or the other case you provide a link to .I am not really wanting to digress like this about whether or not every case of miscarriage of justice ends up in failure

There is a clear contrast between Derek Bentley, who was hanged and later pardoned and your inference that I am irrational, and this sentence:-

This would clearly present the most monumental difficulties,given they had already executed one man for the crime.

The Sion Jenkins case was a national sensation, admittedly it was in Hastings so our local press carried heavy coverage. Even so, he was tried and convicted for the muder of his step-daughter in Feb 1997, then the conviction was quashed and he was re-tried a further twice and each time no verdict could be reached so he was released, and the Sussex Police have decided not to pursue a third re-trial. That means that the case is unsolved, but the Police are not investigating further.

If you cannot see the connection between a gruesome murder in 1961 where the vast majority of the people connected with the case are dead (with the notable exception of the surviving victim), and a gruesome murder in 1997 where the vast majority of those connected are still alive. And yet the Police are not re-opening the investigation in the latter case!

I believe there is powerful information in the case against Hanratty that there were numerous instances of police failure to disclose vital evidence.

All of which are explained in the judgment, including ESDA tests that you have not yet referred to.

KR,
Vic.

[Natalie Severn]

Victor,

Thanks for your post, immediately above.I will respond more fully to the matter of the ESDA tests later,if need be,for the moment .What they showed was that a crucial part of the police notes in the interview with Hanratty---ie the part that referred to him using the word "kip"-as the murderer had done and which Hanratty denied he had used, had been rewritten after the original notes had been completed .
Moreover, Valerie Storie had requested for her 2nd attempt at "identification" ,that she could ask the participants to speak.She had ofcourse misidentified a RAF man as her rapist and Gregston"s killer during that Ist Identification parade.However,it was later learned that Hanratty was alone among those in the Identification parade of 9 to have spoken with a cockney dialect and accent.The others mostly came from the Midlands and even as far North as Scotland.
BTW,I didnt say you were irrational Victor--nor do I think that,far from it in fact.What I said and what I meant, was that your point was something of a digression from the one I was trying to focus on,which was how the issue of witheld evidence is a very serious point of law and one which can significantly affect outcome.
Best
Norma

[Natalie Severn]

Regarding the Sion Jenkins case: I am aware Victor.This is a case where I am lost for words.Uncomfortable about it is perhaps too mild a word........