a6 murder

[Natalie Severn]

Hi Norma,

That's Caz's point, either the red bit is true or the green bit, they are mutually exclusive!

KR,
Vic.

Ok.Lets look at it from another angle:
The issue of possible original contamination both during 1961 testing in the lab by Dr Grant, when Hanratty"s stained fly area of trouser was tested by Dr Grant ---prior to testing V.S"s underwear on 28th/29th Dec.1961 respectively ,and when possible contamination both then and afterwards could have taken place-the cloth sample said[by Michael Hanratty] to have been discovered to have been accidently "dropped' during its excise ,on a bench where Hanratty"s trousers had been placed the previous day.

Isnt this all the more reason to be concerned that we actually know nothing that has anything of corroborated detail regarding the actual "history" of this 1961 cloth sample from the crotch area of knickers ?We dont know how big it was,whosoever had access to it during and from December 1961 or whether the DNA body fluids had "mixed"and if they had, whether they could ever have been reliably tested as to what quantity came from which original fluid or whether there had been initial contamination by secondary fluid ie from Hanratty"s green trousers for example .So much is conjecture ---because we are given no precise measurements re the quantity of "separated " seminal fluid /vaginal fluid that comprise the stains nor is the information from 1961 clear about the exact age or condition of the fluids .
Importantly,it is precisely the"mixture interpretation" of samples that has been so severely questioned by Budowle and his team working on research papers for the FBI ,that has not been validated and that has therefore been strongly disputed for its reliability for use in a court of law.
Remember the 2002 appeal ruling "predated" by 4 years the findings of LCN DNA test expert, Budowle"s 2006 discoveries as found in his above research papers and specifically pertaining to the pitfalls of " small mixed sample" LCN DNA testing.
Best
Norma

[Victor]

Ok.Lets look at it from another angle:
The issue of possible original contamination ...

Hi Norma,

Contamination is an entirely seperate issue, and wild speculations by the hanged man's brother are highly dubious. The point is, either LCN detected the DNA profile from Hanratty (no mixed profile!) on the handkerchief, and profiles from Valerie, Gregsten and Hanratty on the knicker fragment; or LCN is unreliable and can't detect DNA profiles. Which one are you hedging your bets with this time?

Isnt this all the more reason to be concerned that we actually know nothing that has anything of corroborated detail regarding the actual "history" of this 1961 cloth sample from the crotch area of knickers ?

If you don't accept the history that was reproduced in the judgment, and prefer to rely on the outbursts of Foot and others then you will concern yourself.

We dont know how big it was

Woffinden claims to have seen it! It's a small bit of cloth, ask him for the exact dimensions.

whether the DNA body fluids had "mixed" and if they had, whether they could ever have been reliably tested as to what quantity came from which original fluid or whether there had been initial contamination by secondary fluid

What does this mean? The semen and vaginal fluid leaked from Valerie, of course they mixed.

Importantly,it is precisely the "mixture interpretation" of samples that has been so severely questioned by Budowle and his team working on research papers for the FBI ,that has not been validated and that has therefore been strongly disputed for its reliability for use in a court of law.

Mixture interpretation is always an issue, because you can't definitively say which peak at which loci belongs to which of the mixed profiles, but what you can do is eliminate the peaks from the knowns (or highly probables like the victims), and you are left with a group of unassigned peaks, at which point you compare these to the suspect, and if you get a match, then that's a match - obviously there may be coincidental peaks where the victim(s) and suspect overlap, and here you recognise that fact and report it. What Budowle and his team are referring to are mixed profiles from more than one unknown person, here the interpretation is way more complex.

Remember the 2002 appeal ruling "predated" by 4 years the findings of LCN DNA test expert, Budowle"s 2006 discoveries as found in his above research papers and specifically pertaining to the pitfalls of " small mixed sample" LCN DNA testing.

Budowle isn't an LCN expert. His profile http://www.biomedexperts.com/Profile.../Bruce_Budowle mentions DNA Fingerprinting and PCR, but not LCN.

And so what if his comments are 4 years later, the test was re-evaluated and it was decided that LCN was "fit for purpose" and made the recommendation that future tests are quantified first, which we know happened in the 1995 SGM tests on the knicker fragment.

KR,
Vic.

[Natalie Severn]

Hi Victor,

Contamination is an entirely seperate issue, and wild speculations by the hanged man's brother are highly dubious. The point is, either LCN detected the DNA profile from Hanratty (no mixed profile!) on the handkerchief, and profiles from Valerie, Gregsten and Hanratty on the knicker fragment; or LCN is unreliable and can't detect DNA profiles. Which one are you hedging your bets with this time?

1]
The way you pose your question here can obfuscate this issue .Lets be clear;there are in my view two separate parts to your question :
a]Yes. Hanratty"s DNA profile was detected on his " handkerchief" which for some extraordinary reason was found in Bedford and not found alongside "other exhibits" in the file-.It was found in Bedford Police Department, in an unsealed envelope and therefore not stored with the gun it is "alleged" to have been "wrapped around" Why is this I wonder? Do we know for certain ,in the absence of accurate records, that this handkerchief wasnt just one of several of Hanratty"s used handkerchiefs ,kept as a kind of trophy from when Hanratty stood on trial for his life at Bedford?

b]The knicker fragment kept 50 miles away in Lambeth was kept alongside other exhibits in the file discovered in 1991---but this is just one of the places where contamination of the knicker fragment could have happened over the years ,since the cloth sample could also more rapidly have become contaminated with Hanratty"s DNA way back in 1961 through the knickers from which it was excised having been placed on a surface where Hanratty"s green trousers had rested the previous day.

So the answer to your question is

a]LCN DNA testing on the handkerchief,so long as it contained no mixed body fluids,was reliable[with the important proviso that the item itself,ie the hanky, could have been one of several of Hanratty"s handkerchiefs,kept over from his trial in Bedford-it could even have been the last hanky he blew his nose on before the noose was put around his neck.

b]The LCN DNA testing has been the subject of commissioned research by the FBI in Washington and was been found by this 2006 FBI research team to be unreliable when used on "mixed samples" such as we have in the fragment of knicker,and therefore should not be used in a court of law.

Vic-Regarding Bruce Budowle"s profile----he is indeed an LCN DNA expert and was paid as such by the FBI.Your link neither proves nor disproves anything -it simply cites one long list of scientific criteria he is involved in,which includes DNA.

[Natalie Severn]

What Budowle and his team are referring to are mixed profiles from more than one unknown person, here the interpretation is way more complex.

Can you provide a specific source for this. I understood the findings would apply to both the original confluence of body fluids found on the cloth sample and any subsequent "mixture" from DNA contamination .
The important point here though ,surely, is that not only is more evidence being found that LCN DNA testing is a controversial technique to use in a court of law ,but in Dr Budowle"s testimony in that recent case , at the court of appeal, he said LCN gave "too many unreliable results",and that the FBI would not consider it safe to rely on such evidence.The outcome to Budowle"s testimony was that the appeal court ruled that for future cases involving LCN the amount of material must first be quantified-not done in the A6 case.

[Victor]

LCN DNA testing on the handkerchief,so long as it contained no mixed body fluids,was reliable[with the important proviso that the item itself,ie the hanky, could have been one of several of Hanratty"s handkerchiefs,kept over from his trial in Bedford-it could even have been the last hanky he blew his nose on before the noose was put around his neck.

Hi Norma,

It was the only hankerchief that was an exhibit at the trial, but otherwise OK.

The LCN DNA testing has been the subject of commissioned research by the FBI in Washington and was been found by this 2006 FBI research team to be unreliable when used on "mixed samples" such as we have in the fragment of knicker,and therefore should not be used in a court of law.

What "commissioned research"? Source please.

Regarding Bruce Budowle"s profile----he is indeed an LCN DNA expert and was paid as such by the FBI.Your link neither proves nor disproves anything -it simply cites one long list of scientific criteria he is involved in,which includes DNA.

He is not an LCN expert, he's a DNA fingerprinting expert. LCN is a technique, DNA fingerprinting is the whole subject of profiling. He has no expwerience with the technique, just the field.

KR,
Vic.

[Victor]

The way you pose your question here can obfuscate this issue .Lets be clear;there are in my view two separate parts to your question.

Hi Norma,

The three samples were examined by the same technique and two gave corroborating results (the slip yielded nothing), the two seperate issues are:-

1. The test, does it work reliably and accurate identify all profiles on the sample?

2. Interpretation of the results - Explaining how the DNA profiles determined from (1) arose. Was it contamination?

If the test doesn't work then you don't have to explain how the results came about because the results are unreliable, but if the test does work then you have to explain the results.

Basically you keep waivering between the test doesn't work... to the test works but the results are due to contamination. It's one or the other, so when you keep going on about the contamination you accept that Budowle and co are wrong, and the test works. But then you repeat that the test doesn't work. Which is it?

KR,
Vic.

[Natalie Severn]

Hi Vic,

What "commissioned research"? Source please.

Please refer to the link below:

http://www.promega.com/geneticidproc/ussymp12proc/contents/budowle.pdf

This passage warns about the concerns arising from FBI DNA research by scientists and developing understanding of the limitations of LCN DNA testing---the main reason why Hanratty"s conviction was upheld in the 2002 ruling was because of the information this DNA LCN testing was said to yield and which is now the subject of growing reservations by FBI scientists..

CONCLUSIONS
Caution should be undertaken when attempting LCN typing. The success rate is low; often the results
cannot be interpreted or are meaningless for the case. The method cannot be used for exculpatory
purposes. However, for single source samples where exogenous DNA can be removed and for typing of
human remains, LCN typing may be applicable. While there have been some dedicated efforts to exploit
LCN typing, primary efforts still should be to reduce stochastic effects on minute evidence samples.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT
This is publication number 01-26 of the Laboratory Division of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Names
of commercial manufacturers are provided for identification only, and inclusion does not imply
endorsement by the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

If you read entire transcript Vic,you will see this is a commissioned piece of work by the Washington branch of the FBI.

[Natalie Severn]

Vic,
My numbered post above was perfectly clear about which LCN DNA tested exhibits I would not accept as having been reliably tested viz the fragment of cloth cut from the knickers and allegedly providing evidence of Hanratty"s guilt.
I would not accept such a result ,based on the 2006 rulings of the American appeal courts ,that "for all future cases involving LCN ,the amount of material must first be quantified as this did not happen in the A6 case . The American ruling followed Budowles research -see link.
I accept the DNA test results on the hanky but reject its alleged provenance.
Norma

[Limehouse]

Vic,
My numbered post above was perfectly clear about which LCN DNA tested exhibits I would not accept as having been reliably tested viz the fragment of cloth cut from the knickers and allegedly providing evidence of Hanratty"s guilt.
I would not accept such a result ,based on the 2006 rulings of the American appeal courts ,that "for all future cases involving LCN ,the amount of material must first be quantified as this did not happen in the A6 case . The American ruling followed Budowles research -see link.
I accept the DNA test results on the hanky but reject its alleged provenance.
Norma

I totally agree Norma, there is no evidence at all to suggest that Hanratty placed that gun and hanky on the bus. It is interesting that witnesses place Hanratty in the Morris Minor car that morning but nobody at all has come forward to say that he was seen abandoning the car, waiting at the bus stop, on the bus, leaving the bus or anywhere else in London at all that day or days subsequently. Where was he if not in Liverpool or Rhyl??

[Natalie Severn]

I agree Julie and in fact those Morris Minor witnesses disagreed with each other !

[NickB]

there is no evidence at all to suggest ... nobody at all has come forward ...

I think the driver of the car would have waited until no-one was around before getting out.

As for the bus ...

Conductress Pamela Patt said that at 6.10am on 24 August a young man got on her bus and went to the upper deck. He was “about 25, 5 ft. 7 ins., medium build, thick wavy hair, mousey colour, clean shaven”.

This man was the only person who was alone on the upper deck that day and who had an opportunity to deposit the gun and cartridges unseen.

Not an exact description of his hair, although we do know the colour was fading because he needed to have it blackened on 26 August, but otherwise sounds pretty much like JH.

[Natalie Severn]

As for the bus ...

Conductress Pamela Patt said that at 6.10am on 24 August a young man got on her bus and went to the upper deck. He was “about 25, 5 ft. 7 ins., medium build, thick wavy hair, mousey colour, clean shaven”.

This man was the only person who was alone on the upper deck that day and who had an opportunity to deposit the gun and cartridges unseen.

.

Nick, please can we have your source for this statement?


In the statement made by Pamela Patt of 26th September 1961 that I have access to, she has this to say:

"By the time we got to the Harrow Road,the bus was full and remained like this until we arrived at Victoria....In the first journey to KIlburn the passengers were all regular ones.....I did not see anything suspicious during the whole of this journey."[No mention of this chap you describe].

The point about this is that during the time the bus was travelling through "those parts of London with which Hanratty was very closely connected"-[according to Swanwick],the bus was full.
Her statement was never disclosed to the defence-possibly because the opportunities Hanratty would have had to deposit the gun during the morning run were all but non-existent-and there was no other time he could have done so,therefore it would not have helped the case for the prosecution to disclose it.The statement was in fact not discovered until 30 years later-by Woffinden.
Norma

[Victor]

Please refer to the link below:

http://www.promega.com/geneticidproc/ussymp12proc/contents/budowle.pdf

Caution should be undertaken when attempting LCN typing. The success rate is low; often the results cannot be interpreted or are meaningless for the case.

Hi Norma,

Great quote, but...

Ofcourse I accept that Hanratty"s DNA was picked up,Caz.

...so entirely irrelevent because it was successful.

This passage warns about the concerns arising from FBI DNA research by scientists and developing understanding of the limitations of LCN DNA testing---the main reason why Hanratty"s conviction was upheld in the 2002 ruling was because of the information this DNA LCN testing was said to yield and which is now the subject of growing reservations by FBI scientists..

Yup, limitations, but this time it worked, so irrelevent.

And the reservations were growing up until 2006 (you've given lots of links to this), but have since subsided... Give me a source that says otherwise!

If you read entire transcript Vic,you will see this is a commissioned piece of work by the Washington branch of the FBI.

It's the FBI evaluating the technique for use within the US, not the UK where it is completely accepted.

KR,
Vic.

[Victor]

My numbered post above was perfectly clear about which LCN DNA tested exhibits I would not accept as having been reliably tested viz the fragment of cloth cut from the knickers and allegedly providing evidence of Hanratty"s guilt.

Hi Norma,

So where did the rapist's DNA diappear to? How did it disappear?

I would not accept such a result ,based on the 2006 rulings of the American appeal courts ,that "for all future cases involving LCN ,the amount of material must first be quantified as this did not happen in the A6 case . The American ruling followed Budowles research -see link.

But the UK courts in 2009 Reed\Reed and Garmson post-date those rulings and actually refer to British cases so are much more relevent. And it's this 2009 ruling that insisted on the quantification, and it WAS DONE IN THE 1995 SGM Hanratty tests. The 2009 ruling followed Budowle's 2006 research.

I accept the DNA test results on the hanky but reject its alleged provenance.

Pick and choose, this supports your argument so you'll accept it, that doesn't so you waffle and shout and SHOUT and obfuscate and ignore the pertinent points and questions.

Fine you reject the provenance of the hanky but the crucial knicker fragment that was discovered packaged exactly as it was left in 1962 with DNA profiles from the victims, and a 3rd from Hanratty, but not from the rapist (unless it was Hanratty) you reject why?

KR,
Vic.

[Victor]

I totally agree Norma, there is no evidence at all to suggest that Hanratty placed that gun and hanky on the bus.

Hi Julie,

It's scientifically proved to be the murder weapon, and scientifically proved to be wrapped in Hanratty's hanky. That links the two. Absolutely it doesn't prove Hanratty "placed [them] on the bus" but it links them.

It is interesting that witnesses place Hanratty in the Morris Minor car that morning but nobody at all has come forward to say that he was seen abandoning the car, waiting at the bus stop, on the bus, leaving the bus or anywhere else in London at all that day or days subsequently. Where was he if not in Liverpool or Rhyl??

What about Woffinden's discussion of the Redbridge station witnesses? And again absence of evidence doesn't prove something doesn't happen. If a tree falls in the woods and there's no-one there to hear or see it, that doesn't prove it didn't fall. There's no reliable witness that places Hanratty in Liverpool or Rhyl at the crucial time, but he was somewhere.

KR,
Vic.