a6 murder

[Natalie Severn]

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.

Vic,
I have been considering the contents of the extract above,which you kindly posted.It appears to me that Dr Grant ,being a pathologist,would certainly have been vigilant in taking care to avoid any possible contamination between the above exhibits .However,we know nothing at all about who,precisely, had access to these exhibits prior to their transport to the pathologists lab. or whether those in charge of this operation were as scrupulous in preventing contact between the exhibits as Dr Grant was likely to have been.Do you know if we have some knowledge of what the procedure was in 1961 for the management of exhibits prior to being taken to the pathologist?
Also ,I would like to know what "intimate samples", exactly, were taken from Hanratty ? Also , were they taken from him while he was in his prison cell or was he taken to Dr Grant"s laboratory to have them taken from him?---do you have any idea what procedure was followed here Vic?

Many Thanks
Norma

[Natalie Severn]

What is your source for these statistics? And Valerie did not take 20 minutes to decide - see her testimony on the subject - she took 20 minutes to report her decision.

Here are two of the sources---Can"t find the third but will eventually! I hope you read the case of Jennifer Thompson, Vic,as it is relevant to this discussion about the need for a note of caution here .
The time lag factor comes under "Identification Reliability".
Moreover, today , neither Acott"s-"Well Done!" or his presence at the parade would be allowed .
Best
Norma

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eyewitness_identification

http://law.jrank.org/pages/18786/Lineup.html

[Victor]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eyewitness_identification

Hi Norma,

I've not got time for a full responce, but this bit from the wiki link above seems very relevent for the Michael Clark Identification:-
Culprit-Present Versus Culprit-Absent Lineups
One of the most obvious causes of inaccurate identifications resulting from police lineups is the use of a lineup that does not include the actual perpetrator of the crime. In other words, police suspect one person of having committed a crime, when in fact it was committed by an unknown other person who does not appear in the lineup. When the actual perpetrator is not included in the lineup, research has shown that the police suspect faces a significantly heightened risk of being incorrectly identified as the culprit.

According to eyewitness researchers, the most likely cause of this increased occurrence of misidentification is what is termed the "relative judgment" process. That is, when viewing a group of photos or individuals, a witness tends to select the person who looks "most like" the perpetrator. When the actual perpetrator is not present in the lineup, the police suspect is often the person who best fits the description, hence his or her selection for the lineup.

KR,
Vic.

[Victor]

It appears to me that Dr Grant ,being a pathologist,would certainly have been vigilant in taking care to avoid any possible contamination between the above exhibits .However,we know nothing at all about who,precisely, had access to these exhibits prior to their transport to the pathologists lab. or whether those in charge of this operation were as scrupulous in preventing contact between the exhibits as Dr Grant was likely to have been.Do you know if we have some knowledge of what the procedure was in 1961 for the management of exhibits prior to being taken to the pathologist?

Hi Norma,

I have nothing more than what is stated in the judgment -> http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2002/1141.html

Para 114.
On 7 October 1961 a suitcase containing James Hanratty’s clothing was seized from the home of his girlfriend, Louise Anderson. It was received at the laboratory on 9 October. Amongst other items it contained a pair of dark pinstriped trousers (part of the Hepworth suit) and a green jacket and trousers. Some hairs and fibres were removed from the outside of the dark trousers as was a sample from a seminal stain on the inside of the fly. A suggestion, which has not been contradicted, is that the seminal stain may have been washed out and retained in the form of a liquid. On 13 October, the laboratory received samples of James Hanratty’s blood and saliva. It was only at this point that the police became aware of his blood grouping. The records are incomplete but there would seem to be no reason for any of James Hanratty’s items of clothing or for his intimate samples to be present in the laboratory at the same time as the knickers or the handkerchief. There is, of course, the possibility that all the exhibits were stored in the same place, albeit separately packaged, which, it is submitted, might have provided the opportunity for secondary contamination. Dr Nickolls is dead. Mr Howard is still alive though in poor health. His recollection is that the dangers of contamination were recognised even in 1961 and that the practice was to take elementary precautions such as making sure that clothing from victim and suspect were not examined on the same day.

Also ,I would like to know what "intimate samples", exactly, were taken from Hanratty ? Also , were they taken from him while he was in his prison cell or was he taken to Dr Grant"s laboratory to have them taken from him?---do you have any idea what procedure was followed here Vic?

The above paragraph from the judgment lists "blood and saliva".

KR,
Vic.

[RonIpstone]

On the question of identification, it is accepted that eyewitness identification of a suspect, previously unknown to the witness, is always going to be questionable and that the jury must take care before convicting on such evidence.

Most, if not all, of the identification weaknesses were drawn to the jury's attention, the main one being the fact that Miss Storie had wrongly identified her assailant in the Alphon ID parade. Yet the jury, possibly blinded by the weaknesses of the Rhyl alibi advanced by the defence, convicted on that evidence and on the other circumstantial evidence put before them.

In short, Val said Hanratty was the murderer, and Hanratty said (eventually) that he was in Rhyl; the jury believed Val and did not believe Hanratty. It is possible that the notoriously dim Bedfordshire jurymen equated a belief beyond reasonable doubt that Hanratty was lying with the belief beyond reasonable doubt that he committed the murder. We do not know and never will know what, if anything, went on in the minds of 11 jurymen who stayed the course and ventured a view on Hanratty's guilt. Reading between the lines it seems that several observers of the trial, the judge himself and counsel for the defence thought that the prosecution had not brought the charges home. The jurymen, the ones whose views matter, thought otherwise.

The state of the art science now available to the forensic chaps determined that Hanratty's DNA was on the piece of Valerie's knickers and accordingly the Bedfordshire jury got it right.

It is not sufficient to say that Jim's DNA could have got on the knickers fragment by contamination, that possibility is accepted by the prosecution; what one has to explain is, if Jim had not been the rapist, what had happened to the rapist's DNA?

It seems from the Court of Appeal judgement that the defence led by Michael Mansfield QC accepted that Alphon was not the murderer/rapist and that this view was as a result of the DNA. But how could Alphon be ruled out as being the rapist? The only way was on the basis that his DNA was not found on the knicker fragment. But then again nor was any other person's DNA, in which case everyone else apart from Hanratty could be ruled out. If everyone apart from Hanratty is ruled out, then that leaves Hanratty as the only possible suspect. QED.

The defence in 2002 did not raise any theory as to how the real rapist's DNA could vanish when it must have been present in 1961, having been deposited as seminal fluid which yielded the forensic evidence that the rapist was a blood group 0 secretor.

Paul Foot's book argues not only that Hanratty was not guilty but that Alphon was guilty. In 2002 those entrusted with the Hanratty defence were prepared to exonerate Alphon, but argue that the conviction should be set aside because of irregularities in the trial process. That is to say that Jim did it, but did not get a fair crack of the trial whip in Bedford in February 1962. Those who still wish to advance Jim's cause of innocence and to clear his name are going to have to resolve the schism which occurred in 2002 when the only other possible rapist/murderer, namely Alphon, was expressly let off the hook by Jim's team. As mentioned above, exculpating Alphon has the logical effect of exculpating everyone who was not Hanratty.

[Natalie Severn]

Thanks Vic and Ron,
I dont know enough about DNA to make the argument, I must admit.Is it not possible that when Dr Grant cut the crotch out of the pair of knickers , he also may have cut off the section with the rapists DNA on it? I don"t know.
I can see a number of ways the crotch sample and knickers - could have become contaminated by Hanratty"s DNA as far back as when they were first collected ,during their earlier ,subsequent storage,during their transportation etc , but if Hanratty was not the rapist,the question does remain -where has the rapist"s DNA gone?
What comes across very clearly in the papers by Budowle, is that it is precisely when LCN DNA testing is done on the type of mixed body fluid samples presented here -viz those of MG/ VS /the rapist --together with any possibilities of contamination , that has called the entire "reliability" of LCN DNA testing into question .

Regarding eye witnesses and identification,I actually thought the case of Jennifer Thompson I gavealink to very pertinent to this case.
Norma

[Victor]

Is it not possible that when Dr Grant cut the crotch out of the pair of knickers , he also may have cut off the section with the rapists DNA on it? I don"t know.

Hi Norma,

Technically it is possible, but it's not just throwing the baby away with the bathwater, it's the baby draining through the plughole with half the bathwater, and another baby being simultaneously thrown through your bathroom window and ending up in your bath without anyone noticing the switch!

I can see a number of ways the crotch sample and knickers - could have become contaminated by Hanratty"s DNA as far back as when they were first collected ,during their earlier ,subsequent storage,during their transportation etc , but if Hanratty was not the rapist,the question does remain -where has the rapist"s DNA gone?

Exactly, the extra "Hanratty" baby could have snuck in at lots of points, but you also have to leave some of Valerie's vaginal "bathwater", Gregsten's "soapsubs" but totally eliminate the rapist's "bubblebath". Possible, one-in-a-billion would be generous; feasible/plausible, No.

What comes across very clearly in the papers by Budowle, is that it is precisely when LCN DNA testing is done on the type of mixed body fluid samples presented here -viz those of MG/ VS /the rapist --together with any possibilities of contamination , that has called the entire "reliability" of LCN DNA testing into question .

What Budowle and other defense experts are relying on is that tiny slither of doubt - Am I 100% certain? No, I'm 99.999,999% certain. Is that safe enough to confirm the conviction. Absolutely, Yes. The 0.000,001% doubt is not a "reasonable doubt".

Regarding eye witnesses and identification,I actually thought the case of Jennifer Thompson I gave a link to very pertinent to this case.

The Thompson case is pertinent to the case, Valerie identified Hanatty and mis-identified Clark within 2 months of the crime, albeit with the negative "weapon-focus". The Rhyl witnesses were 6 months later, with massive "experimenter bias", they'd unquestionably fail the "Turnbull directions" massively. They had nothing to lose and everything to gain, Valerie had already lost so much, and would have nothing to gain from the wrong person being hanged. ln your "Qui Bono?" terms, Justice rewarded them handsomely, even if nothing came from it.

KR,
Vic.

[RonIpstone]

I not certain that baby bath time analogies are helpful here.

It seems that the rapist had ejaculated and deposited seminal fluid stains on the crotch and towards the back of the knickers; from the crotch area a strip was excised and preserved to eventually provide us with the DNA results.

If it is now to be argued that this strip or fragment had not been contaminated with seminal fluid, then one has to ask (1) what was the purpose of of excising this strip? and (2)why didn't the defence expert say that there was no proof that this strip had had been affected with the rapist's seminal fluid? If there had been any chance of raising this argument, no matter how remote, then, bearing in mind some of the other points taken, I am sure that the defence forensic expert would have done so.

Instead the defence was able to agree with the prosecution that Alphon could not have been the murderer because his, Alphon's, DNA had not been detected on the knicker fragment.

[Natalie Severn]

Hi Vic,

Technically it is possible, but it's not just throwing the baby away with the bathwater, it's the baby draining through the plughole with half the bathwater, and another baby being simultaneously thrown through your bathroom window and ending up in your bath without anyone noticing the switch!

They destroyed the slip which had 5 inches of seminal fluid on it,destroyed the knickers and kept only the section from the crotch---which was also used in 1995 and could have begun to degrade from then on.It is the over tested and probably degraded and contaminated crotch fragment that is the problem here

The Thompson case is pertinent to the case, Valerie identified Hanatty and mis-identified Clark within 2 months of the crime, albeit with the negative "weapon-focus". The Rhyl witnesses were 6 months later, with massive "experimenter bias", they'd unquestionably fail the "Turnbull directions" massively. They had nothing to lose and everything to gain, Valerie had already lost so much, and would have nothing to gain from the wrong person being hanged. ln your "Qui Bono?" terms, Justice rewarded them handsomely, even if nothing came from it.

I believe you have misunderstood ,Vic.

Jennifer Thompson, just like Valerie was the victim of a rapist armed with a weapon---a knife in this case which he held to her throat.Jennifer "misidentified" a man in a line up as her rapist even though she had made a conscious attempt to memorise his features and any distinguishing mark she had.Her wrong identification in a line up ID ,although through no conscious fault of her own,simply the way memory can work as a result of such terrible trauma, caused an innocent man to spend eleven years in prison and the real rapist to stay free.
So convinced the first man she had [wrongly ]identified was her rapist, that she refused to believe the man who actually had raped her was the correct man.She said she had never seen him in her life.

I take your point about the Rhyl witnesses although there were quite a number of people from Rhyl who came forward .
Finally "Qui Bono" is still a good question to ask.No.certainly poor Valerie didnt---nor Mike Gregsten.But I am convinced there is more to it than merely a host of amazing trillion to one coincidences!
Anyway,many thanks for the link.Certainly lots to think about there!
Night Vic,
Norma

Its still a good question-Qui Bono.Valerie definitely didnt,Mike certainly not.Neither ofcourse did Hanratty ! But if you think about it,one or two may have.And the £5,000---worth about 20 times that today allowed Alphon to go from penniless scrounger to an affluent "flaneur"! What role,if any might he have played in it all?

Ron,you are quite right---I noticed that too.So Alphon technically could not have been the rapist.
.

[Victor]

I not certain that baby bath time analogies are helpful here.

Sorry Ron, but the "throwing the baby out with the bathwater" saying/analogy is so applicable here. What Norma is suggesting is they threw away the knicker section with the rapist's semen and left another piece of Valerie's underwear!

KR,
Vic.

ps. Just read your post Norma, "suggesting" is perhaps too strong... "contemplating" maybe?

[Natalie Severn]

Vic,
"considering"-----will probably re-read the link tomorrow!
Cheers
Norma

[Victor]

I believe you have misunderstood ,Vic.

Hi Norma,

I'm playing devil's advocate again. Thompson was wrong, and was insistent about it, but lots of victims have also been proved right too. Undoubtedly Valerie's insistence had an effect on the jury, but that doesn't mean they came to the wrong decision in the end.

And the £5,000---worth about 20 times that today allowed Alphon to go from penniless scrounger to an affluent "flaneur"!

It was a lot of money, but it also went almost as quickly as it came! Alphon was hardly "affluent" for long.

KR,
Vic.

[RonIpstone]

Sorry Ron, but the "throwing the baby out with the bathwater" saying/analogy is so applicable here. What Norma is suggesting is they threw away the knicker section with the rapist's semen and left another piece of Valerie's underwear!

KR,
Vic.

ps. Just read your post Norma, "suggesting" is perhaps too strong... "contemplating" maybe?

Sorry Vic,

But to imply that the remainder of the knickers after the fragment had been excised from it was "bathwater" is misleading in the extreme.

First, the remainder was not thrown away immediately after the excising of the fragment; it was kept and used as an exhibit and only destroyed after Hanratty's execution.

Second, the fragment was excised from the whole so that tests could be performed upon it. It was a sample of the larger seminal fluid stained whole of the knickers. It was not the "baby" in the sense that it represented all the good forensic evidence.

Third, for the corollary of the second point above, the remainder of the knickers could not be described as "bathwater" as it still was forensic evidence, was appreciated as such and indeed was used at court.

It is true that it was not appreciated in 1962 how valuable both the fragment and the remainder of the knickers could prove to be in the forthcoming age of DNA analysis and of appeals by the families of executed men. It seems that it was a matter of routine to destroy all the exhibits used in the trial, which seems to be how the fragment escaped destruction. It was not a case of someone making a judgement as to which was the "baby" and which was the "bathwater".

Ron

[Natalie Severn]

Vic and Ron,
Vic,clearly this is an extremely sensitive area to be discussing on line but like Ron,I do not think your analogy matches what happens regarding the destruction of the slip,which I think may be crucial to this particular rape as we understand VS removed her knickers beforehand .Seminal fluid was discovered on the slip in fairly large quantity mixed with vaginal fluid and to the extent of a five inch strip-but the "slips" were destroyed and there is no mention anywhere that I could find of the cut off piece of slip ever having been saved---only the crotch area of knicker sample.
So I understand the following happened:The knickers ,minus the excised portion of crotch area ,were destroyed in May 1961.The slips,including the slip piece, were destroyed at the same time as the knickers.
Clearly a large amount of seminal fluid was therefore lost to the 2002 LCN DNA tests.
We do not know whether the knickers were put on back on, after the rape,and this maybe because that part of the evidence was presumably heard in camera?
So we can only look at the fragment of cloth , kept since 1961 and which had been re-tested in 1995 to no avail.
When it was found in 2001 , the cloth fragment was found within a file amongst other items pertaining to exhibits this was a file which contained polythene bags containing,amongst other items, broken slides containing fibres and hairs,and most importantly a polythene bag containing broken glass,a curved piece of glass and a rubber stopper-clearly a glass vial for containing liquids as found in any chemistry lab.
All these items were stored in the same file as the knicker fragment,and whats more, the sellotape had come unstuck and therefore the sealed envelope was no longer sealed and presumably porous.
We know that this knicker fragment was tested in 1995 and that fears existed at the time of testing in 2002 as to how substantial -or insubstantial,degraded or not, any seminal fluid was that remained on the fragment of cloth.
Clearly the seminal fluid on the fragment of knicker "could" have been "overwritten" by leakage from the broken vial,even if it was fairly minute in quantity.[remember in the case of Barry George, his DNA was found in miniscule quantity simply by his jacket being hung up alongside materials connected with the gun-will look this up later to refresh my memory].

Therefore when all these reservations about the quality on the 2002 DNA and the Low Copy Number testing,are placed in the context of the recent fears and cautions by the FBI papers submitted by Budowle ,regarding the "reliability" of DNA LCN testing, then the case does not seem nearly so cut and dried ,and many questions still need to be asked on a number of fronts.
but mainly focussed on
a]the contra indications of Low Copy Number testing of mixed substance DNA
and
b]in this particular case , the question of whether there was sufficient quantity of DNA that was still uncontaminated, left on the knicker portion-especially since sufficient quantity is such a crucially important pre-requisite for accuracy of testing-----according to Budowle?
Regards

Norma

[Victor]

like Ron,I do not think your analogy matches what happens regarding the destruction of the slip,which I think may be crucial to this particular rape as we understand VS removed her knickers beforehand.

Hi Norma & Ron,

I still think the basic analogy applies, the "baby" is the pertinent evidence - the rapists' semen, and the implication is that this was discarded but an insignificant piece of the knickers was retained. My extended analogy clearly has flaws.

I will also point out (from para 108 of the judgment) that in November 1997 "The test was conducted on the small remaining piece of fabric from the knickers (part having been used in the 1995 experiment), a piece of material from one of the slips and the areas of staining from the handkerchief."

Where this piece of the slip came from I do not know.

Seminal fluid was discovered on the slip in fairly large quantity mixed with vaginal fluid and to the extent of a five inch strip-but the "slips" were destroyed and there is no mention anywhere that I could find of the cut off piece of slip ever having been saved---only the crotch area of knicker sample.

The 5" strip of semen staining was on the knickers - I can find no reference to a semen stain on the slip. Secondly, the quote above refers to a portion of the slip being saved.

So I understand the following happened:The knickers ,minus the excised portion of crotch area ,were destroyed in May 1961.The slips,including the slip piece, were destroyed at the same time as the knickers.

The remainder of the knickers, and the remainder of the slip were destroyed sometime around April/May 1962.

Clearly a large amount of seminal fluid was therefore lost to the 2002 LCN DNA tests.

Part of the sample was consumed in the 1995 tests that Woffinden actively encouraged, but a significant part was left for the Nov 1997 LCN tests.

When it was found in 2001, the cloth fragment was found within a file amongst other items pertaining to exhibits this was a file which contained polythene bags containing,amongst other items, broken slides containing fibres and hairs,and most importantly a polythene bag containing broken glass,a curved piece of glass and a rubber stopper-clearly a glass vial for containing liquids as found in any chemistry lab.

It was found in 1991, and some of the hairs found came from Alphon!

All these items were stored in the same file as the knicker fragment,and whats more, the sellotape had come unstuck and therefore the sealed envelope was no longer sealed and presumably porous.

This cellophane "envelope" was inside a manilla envelope, which was inside a second paper-based envelope, neither of which showed water damage.

Clearly the seminal fluid on the fragment of knicker "could" have been "overwritten" by leakage from the broken vial,even if it was fairly minute in quantity.

Any "overwriting" would be an all-or-nothing washing out of DNA on the fragment, not a selective removal of the rapist's DNA but leaving the two victim's DNA.

and many questions still need to be asked on a number of fronts.
but mainly focussed on
a]the contra indications of Low Copy Number testing of mixed substance DNA

These are considered resolved in the UK by the Reed\Reed and Garmson ruling.

and
b]in this particular case , the question of whether there was sufficient quantity of DNA that was still uncontaminated, left on the knicker portion-especially since sufficient quantity is such a crucially important pre-requisite for accuracy of testing-----according to Budowle?

Well Woffinden is keeping tight-lipped about results of the quantification step from the 1995 tests, could that be because it would completely destroy his arguments?

KR,
Vic.