a6 murder

[JamesDean]

So VS must have had sexual intercourse with:

(1) Michael Gregsten;
(2) Peter Alphon (the rapist);
(3) A person unknown who left seminal fluid which indicated that he was a blood group O secretor?

I mentioned quite some time ago now that 10% of infertile men have no sperm at all in the semen. This is called Azoospermia. If the rapist suffered from this condition then he would have left semen on Val's knickers but no sperm. The rapist was indeed a blood group 'O' secretor as had been identified by tests on the stains on the knickers. That this blood group had been identified was not necessarily very helpful for the police as this is the most common blood group. It would only be of use to eliminate someone who was not that blood group. Both James Hanratty and Peter Alphon shared that blood group as did 47% of the population.

The rapist may not have suffered from Azoospermia but if he did then the semen left behind would not have provided any genetic material detectable by DNA tests and only contamination could account for the presence of any genetic material other than that provided by Valerie Storey and Machael Gregsten. It is likely that contamination could have taken place as has been recorded in the appeals judgment.

If the rapist did not suffer from Azoospermia then the proposed contamination must actually be genetic material from the sperm of the rapist. That was the conclusion drawn by the appeal judges although in fact I don't think that Azoospermia was ever considered, only that the DNA found belonged to VS, MG and JH and if JH is not the rapist and the presence of his genetic material is contamination then where is the rapist's DNA? Well, Azoospermia and contamination would provide an answer. It's a real possibility but one that is now unlikely to be ever proven owing to the passage of time.

I have to say that I have my doubts about that tiny fragment of knicker that was conveniently found after such a long period of time had elapsed. The knickers from which the fragment had been excised had long been destroyed so any questions about location and quantity of stains could not be re-examined in light of answering the DNA question. Perhaps the area that had been used to identify the blood group of the rapist was not from the crotch area from where the fragment originated?

It has been suggested that a nurse at the hospital where Valerie Storey was taken had remarked on the strange way that she was wearing her knickers which begs the question as to whether they were inside out or did she have one leg through the waistband. Is this relevant? Maybe is all I can say unless we have any fresh evidence or can find any further reference to this. I do wonder, though, if Valerie Storey was lying on her back all night, paralysed from the waist down, what is the likelihood of her urinating onto the knickers and what affect did this have on the evidence of the rape? I would suggest that the liklihood of her urinating was quite high and, depending on how she was wearing her knickers, the presumably significant amount of urine washing across the knickers could dispose of much of the evidence from a third party. Food for thought and maybe something that has not been considered before.

There are so many questions still unanswered and many that never will be; this is what makes this case so fascinating!

Regards
James

[Natalie Severn]

Ron,
re Mansfield re Alphon and LCN DNA in general .
I appreciate what you are saying .However if you read the summary at the end of this http://hrcak.srce.hr/file/63753 ,you will see that now,in 2010,findings show that LCNDNA results can be very unreliable and must not be used to "exclude" an individual---[such as Alphon]. Ok Mansfield used them in 2002- that was 2002 and things have already moved on.
I quite accept that the link refers to their use in America---as we have not carried out such in depth research over here as yet and are still accepting unreliable test results.
But here we go again dominating the thread with DNA! All these interesting people will be off once again !
Norma

[Derrick]

Norma
I do admire the tenacity of your fight to show that the DNA evidence in this case is wrong but you are barking up the wrong tree completely.

Contamination is a red herring here and the whole defence team in 2002 made an absolute balls-up of trying to counter the evidence.

Mixed profile interpretation of LCN tests is as invalid today as it was when the FSS first started using it in the late 1990's. Only verified single source DNA profiles under SGM+ can be reproduced for reliable interpretation among more than one analyst full stop.

No one here is, or has been, privvy to the fundamental data that the LCN tests in 1998 produced so no one here can say with any confidence whatsoever whose profile could be maintained as being absolutely correct.

Someone posted on here a while back that because the 1995 tests had to have been quantified, the LCN tests could therefore be based on the same quantification.

This is ridiculous unless both portions of the knicker fragment tested contained exactly the same amount of DNA by provider, molecular weight, degree of degradation and any other criteria that one could imagime.

Someone also posted that allele drop in had to coincide with allele drop out at a single point and that it had never been observed on more than 2 alleles under LCN.

This is nonsense.

Allelic drop-out occurs when very little original DNA from one particular contributor exists and the primers used early on in the PCR process fail to anneal properly to the opposite unwound strands of the original sample and go on to form erroneous copies.

Allelic drop in occurs when contaminating DNA is preferentially amplified at random alleles during PCR.

Both are unpredictable and do not depend on each other at all.

The judgement in the appeal of Reed et al makes the DNA evidence in Hanratty appeal open to question. The fact that LCN was used in Hanratty and no caveat was given as to the limitations of the process is enough, full stop.


The Reed appeal though fails to mention, in its definition of the stochastic threshold, how to deal with LCN mixed profiles.

Reed states that the threshold is between 100 & 200 picograms but that is for single profile samples. In mixed profiles the threshold is potentially n * ST; where n is the number of contributors and ST is the stochastic threshold.

LCN mixed profile interpretation has never been validated because this number (n) will never be known in any test that is made. All that can be achieved is performing a number of aliquot runs and making exacting comparisons of each and every allele's attributes to show that stochastic effects could not occurred. This is still not very painstaking as the RFU level for allele inclusion can always be driven downwards to infinite inclusion of perhaps background noise and stutter as being true alleles.

Norma if I were you I would just accept that the DNA is still questionable according to Reed (and wider considered scientific thinking) and concentrate on showing that the original evidence against Hanratty is purely circumstantial.

Perhaps those here who would like the DNA evidence issue wrapped up for good should drop a couple of quid in the Hanratty lawyers tin to have the data reexamined.

Hanratty was in Rhyl from the evening of the 22nd to the morning of the 24th of August 1961. Or to put it another way with what we now know; the people of Rhyl were more convincing of their identification than those the prosecution produced at trial.

That's all for now folk's.

Derrick

[Graham]

There's a seperate thread to discuss the DNA....

[Natalie Severn]

Our posts crossed James.Thanks for that information which is new to me and very useful.
Another poster on another thread was discussing how someone was so shocked by having a gun pointed and two blanks fired at them , that their immediate reaction was to urinate.Not surprising and even if it was not Valerie"s reaction. having to wait for hours like that in fear of her life may have prompted some temporary incontinence.

Norma

[Natalie Severn]

Derrick,
Well that was really heartening news ---and so was Graham"s information that there is a separate thread for DNA.---
You are clearly much more expert than I am---the DNA experts come and go on this thread it seems!
One thing I am really, really grateful about though ,is what you say about the people of Rhyl, because I am here at the moment and this is exactly what I am picking up--- if and when I have raised it with local people .No hesitation--just a look of surprise saying " ofcourse he was here -no question about it!".
Thanks
Norma

[Derrick]

There's a seperate thread to discuss the DNA....

Graham

Is the small font meant to indicate a whisper or what? Not seen that used before!

I have just looked at the first few posts on the DNA thread.
Both Caz and Victor pooh-poohed Reg1965's idea of a separate thread as being tantamount to sweeping the DNA evidence argument under the carpet and that the argument should be on the main thread.

Perhaps you could ask Caz and Victor for their reasons for carrying on the argument on this thread for so long?

To Everyone

Why was Reg1965 banned?

It seems that this case has as many, if not more, interesting aspects to demand seperate threads as the Ripper. For example it certainly perturbed many MP's at the time and may have led to the abolition of Capital Punishment.

Derrick

[Limehouse]

I mentioned quite some time ago now that 10% of infertile men have no sperm at all in the semen. This is called Azoospermia. If the rapist suffered from this condition then he would have left semen on Val's knickers but no sperm. The rapist was indeed a blood group 'O' secretor as had been identified by tests on the stains on the knickers. That this blood group had been identified was not necessarily very helpful for the police as this is the most common blood group. It would only be of use to eliminate someone who was not that blood group. Both James Hanratty and Peter Alphon shared that blood group as did 47% of the population.

The rapist may not have suffered from Azoospermia but if he did then the semen left behind would not have provided any genetic material detectable by DNA tests and only contamination could account for the presence of any genetic material other than that provided by Valerie Storey and Machael Gregsten. It is likely that contamination could have taken place as has been recorded in the appeals judgment.

If the rapist did not suffer from Azoospermia then the proposed contamination must actually be genetic material from the sperm of the rapist. That was the conclusion drawn by the appeal judges although in fact I don't think that Azoospermia was ever considered, only that the DNA found belonged to VS, MG and JH and if JH is not the rapist and the presence of his genetic material is contamination then where is the rapist's DNA? Well, Azoospermia and contamination would provide an answer. It's a real possibility but one that is now unlikely to be ever proven owing to the passage of time.

I have to say that I have my doubts about that tiny fragment of knicker that was conveniently found after such a long period of time had elapsed. The knickers from which the fragment had been excised had long been destroyed so any questions about location and quantity of stains could not be re-examined in light of answering the DNA question. Perhaps the area that had been used to identify the blood group of the rapist was not from the crotch area from where the fragment originated?

It has been suggested that a nurse at the hospital where Valerie Storey was taken had remarked on the strange way that she was wearing her knickers which begs the question as to whether they were inside out or did she have one leg through the waistband. Is this relevant? Maybe is all I can say unless we have any fresh evidence or can find any further reference to this. I do wonder, though, if Valerie Storey was lying on her back all night, paralysed from the waist down, what is the likelihood of her urinating onto the knickers and what affect did this have on the evidence of the rape? I would suggest that the liklihood of her urinating was quite high and, depending on how she was wearing her knickers, the presumably significant amount of urine washing across the knickers could dispose of much of the evidence from a third party. Food for thought and maybe something that has not been considered before.

There are so many questions still unanswered and many that never will be; this is what makes this case so fascinating!

Regards
James

A very thouyght-provoking post James.

Valerie removed her knickers before being raped and replaced them afterwards. This means two things:

- The rapist did not ejaculate into the back of her knickers and the rapist's deposit must have come from leakage after Valerie replace her knickers.

- When she replaced her knickers she must have been very stressed and very frightened and it is very likely that she replaced them in a haphazard fashion - thus the nurse's remarks.

- The position of the knickers after the rape would determine whereabouts any leakage was deposited and I would think the mosty likely place would be the crotch.

[Natalie Severn]

Derrick,

Well at the time quite a few MP"s were running round swimming pools after Christine Keeler and Mandy Rice Davies --playboy style ---thats if they weren"t queuing up to have the Duchess of Argyle to party with!I dont think their mind was on the job really---or not the job the electorate expected anyway.

[RonIpstone]

Hanratty was in Rhyl from the evening of the 22nd to the morning of the 24th of August 1961. Or to put it another way with what we now know; the people of Rhyl were more convincing of their identification than those the prosecution produced at trial.

Well they were not more convincing at the trial when it mattered. Hanratty perhaps being the least convincing having only decided that he had been to Rhyl when a big unpluggable hole in this Liverpool alibi had developed. The jury heard Hanratty and did not believe him. Dim as the jury members might have been, at least they heard the evidence which was tested by cross-examination.

To elevate the ramblings of the hoi polloi of Rhyl given outside court over the facts strictly proved is a dangerous game.

As mentioned before for me Hanratty did not stay in an attic with a green bath which according to Mrs Jones is the only place in Ingledene in which he could have been accommodated.

[Limehouse]

Ron - why do you kee banging on about the 'dim jury' at Bedford? Are you such an intellectual giant?

[JamesDean]

Our posts crossed James.Thanks for that information which is new to me and very useful.
Another poster on another thread was discussing how someone was so shocked by having a gun pointed and two blanks fired at them , that their immediate reaction was to urinate.Not surprising and even if it was not Valerie"s reaction. having to wait for hours like that in fear of her life may have prompted some temporary incontinence.

Norma

Hi Norma, I was not really suggesting that VS urinated because of shock so much as the length of time that she was laying on her back paralysed. Bearing in mind also the length of time she had been in that car since having been to the pub for a drink and there being no indication that the assailant had allowed her an opportunity to relieve herself. Being paralysed would also mean that she would likely have no awareness or control of her bladder. I think it's odds on that she did urinate and my speculation is how this would have affected any evidence of rape on her knickers.

Graham, I know there is a separate thread on DNA and I have no wish to fill this thread with talk of LCN et al which has been exhaustively covered elsewhere. I think Derrick makes an excellent point that we should just accept that maybe the DNA results in this case do not give a 'beyond reasonable doubt' verdict even if some want to believe it's all cut and dried. Therefore the emphasis is on discussing the real evidence in the hope of uncovering a gem that may lead to an interesting discovery.

James

[Limehouse]

Graham

Is the small font meant to indicate a whisper or what? Not seen that used before!

I have just looked at the first few posts on the DNA thread.
Both Caz and Victor pooh-poohed Reg1965's idea of a separate thread as being tantamount to sweeping the DNA evidence argument under the carpet and that the argument should be on the main thread.

Perhaps you could ask Caz and Victor for their reasons for carrying on the argument on this thread for so long?

To Everyone

Why was Reg1965 banned?

It seems that this case has as many, if not more, interesting aspects to demand seperate threads as the Ripper. For example it certainly perturbed many MP's at the time and may have led to the abolition of Capital Punishment.

Derrick

Indeed - Reg was banned and so was Clive who so recently and reasonably contributed to the ongoing debate. Why was Clive banned and where is SteveS?

[Graham]

If youse guys want to discuss the DNA on this thread, that's OK by me, but to my mind it's a very specialised aspect of this whole debate. But no big deal.

Yes, the small font means I was whispering...

I believe Reg was banned because he said he was trying to locate where another poster lived so he could confront him - but don't quote me on this.
Clive was banned for being a sock-puppet. Dunno where SteveS is.

Graham

[JamesDean]

Don't think this has been posted before.

Graham

http://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg...r&GRid=6532293

Interesting link Graham. Did you click on the 'flowers' tab to see the tributes to JH, most of whom think he was wrongly hanged. One of them says:

I'm afraid you really did it.
- Val
Added: Dec. 23, 2003

Could that be the Val?

James