a6 murder

[Graham]

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

It could well be....and if so indicates that she surfs the net, and could possibly...just possibly...visit this thread. Well spotted, James.

Graham

[Limehouse]

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

What do you mean Graham - a sock puppet? You mean he wasn't really Clive?

[Limehouse]

It could well be....and if so indicates that she surfs the net, and could possibly...just possibly...visit this thread. Well spotted, James.

Graham

I can't see VS making such a tribute.

I think it's slightly strange to leave flowers and messages in such a way. I suppose it's personal choice but I am a bit squeemish about such raw sentiment. I find it hard to even visit loved ones graves.

[jimornot?]

What do you mean Graham - a sock puppet? You mean he wasn't really Clive?

how would anyone know unless IP addresses etc were checked? If they were, what would be the reason? I don't recall Clive as being particularly contentious

atb

viv

PS on the DNA, there is a separate thread but it is not one I particularly visit now - it leaves me a bit bewildered to be honest. That said, if it was to be the forum for the subject (as I suppose it should) then it wouldn't hurt for the odd note to appear here indicating a healthy debate was going on. I found the DNA findings to be the one thing that tipped me off the fence so I am interested to hear that it might not be infalliable which make the points made in James Dean's and Derrick's latest posts food for thought. But 'terms' like stochastic threshold, allelic drop-outs, LCN, SGM, PCR, RFU etc etc are unfortnately too much for my simple mind to take on board

[RonIpstone]

The trouble with the DNA malarkey is that I doubt whether those that come onto this forum to discus the topic in detail, using all the appropriate buzz words, have got the scientific knowledge to make the pronouncements they do. And if they have got any sort of scientific qualifications, then certainly they will not have had access to all the test results carried out before the Hanratty appeal in 2002.

For the rest of us, we are content to rely upon the decision of the Court of Appeal on the DNA question. It seems that the defence expert, Dr Evison, could not find a way round the fundamental problem which shortly stated is, that if Hanratty had not been the rapist, and his DNA was there as a contaminant, then what had happened to the rapist's DNA?

We should remember that Doc Evison was the second expert engaged on behalf of the Hanratty family, the previous expert being Dr Patrick Lincoln. We should assume that he also could not come up with an answer to the conundrum stated above.

An English trial is a contest between two rival views. In the present case the views are (1) Jim did it and (2) Jim did not do it. It is up to the prosecution to present the former view and the job of the defence to discredit it, if they can do so and show that the latter view is the correct one then so much the better. It is the job of the jury, no matter how dim its members might be, to decide whether the prosecution has proved its case or whether the defence has thwarted it. I get the impression that some contributors on this forum have ceased to be impartial and have joined the defence team. In fact they have sacked some members of the defence team on the grounds that they made a 'balls up of it' in the Court of Appeal and constituted themselves as their replacements.

Until someone with the requisite knowledge and qualifications and access to the previous test data and to the procedures used, comes up with a viable answer to the conundrum posed above, then all sensible people will (1) regard the DNA evidence as powerful evidence of Jim's guilt and (2) look upon those that disagree as slightly eccentric (nutty).

[Natalie Severn]

MICHAEL SHERRARD QC (James Hanratty's trial barrister): I really couldn't bring myself to take in that those who had concealed the evidence in a capital case could have been as wicked as that.

MICHAEL SHERRARD: The public were cheated, the system was cheated. I don't regard myself as having been cheated. I, I'm really an intermediate player, but Hanratty was hanged. He was cheated. If the other material that was not disclosed to us would have made the difference, so it, it's fair to say that there seems to be a strong argument at least for saying that the trial was fatally flawed and the word fatal has a real significance in this context.


Michael Sherrard QC ,May 16 2002----just a reminder Ron of what Hanratty"s trial barrister said now an eminent QC.
As a person steeped in the legal system he could hardly conradict the appeal courts decision, but he certainly expresses a deep unhappiness about Hanratty"s "fatally flawed trial!
Best
Norma

[RonIpstone]

M

MICHAEL SHERRARD: The public were cheated, the system was cheated. I don't regard myself as having been cheated. I, I'm really an intermediate player, but Hanratty was hanged. He was cheated. If the other material that was not disclosed to us would have made the difference, so it, it's fair to say that there seems to be a strong argument at least for saying that the trial was fatally flawed and the word fatal has a real significance in this context.

Norma

There was an argument in the Court of Appeal, and no matter how strong it might have been, it did not prevail.

Ron

[Natalie Severn]

Maybe not Ron. But of all the people who discuss the case ,Michael Sherrard QC ought to know what he is talking about ,having defended Hanratty and expressed disgust about the way Hanratty was treated .

[RonIpstone]

MICHAEL SHERRARD: ............... He was cheated. If the other material that was not disclosed to us would have made the difference, so it, it's fair to say that there seems to be a strong argument at least for saying that the trial was fatally flawed and the word fatal has a real significance in this context.

Norma
I think Sherrard was saying this:

"He was cheated if the other material that was not disclosed to us would have made the difference. So it's fair to say that there seems to be a strong argument at least for saying that the trial was fatally flawed and the word fatal has a real significance in this context."

Ron

[Derrick]

Ron

The trouble with the DNA malarkey is that I doubt whether those that come onto this forum to discus the topic in detail, using all the appropriate buzz words, have got the scientific knowledge to make the pronouncements they do. And if they have got any sort of scientific qualifications, then certainly they will not have had access to all the test results carried out before the Hanratty appeal in 2002.

As I said in my post [6318], which you obviously did not peruse very closely;

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.

Whether anyone who posts here has the requisite scientific knowledge or not, it is quite plain that LCN mixed profile interpretation is invalid.

For the rest of us, we are content to rely upon the decision of the Court of Appeal on the DNA question. It seems that the defence expert, Dr Evison, could not find a way round the fundamental problem which shortly stated is, that if Hanratty had not been the rapist, and his DNA was there as a contaminant, then what had happened to the rapist's DNA?

Ron, "the rest of us" who are "content to rely upon the decision of the Court of Appeal on the DNA question" fail to understand the very basics of LCN testing. That is, as I have said above, LCN mixed profile interpretation is invalid.

The rest I completely agree with. In fact this is the classic answer to the silly arguments that consist of Hanratty's DNA must have appeared because of contamination. It logically collapses if Hanratty's profile appeared because then LCN must be valid and correct. Your mantra is easy to follow and to endlessly repeat; but is, in this case, false because, again, LCN mixed profile interpretation is invalid.

As for contamination, it is a red herring in this case and the defence in 2002 obviously didn't have enough expertise to counter the LCN tests in 2002.

We should remember that Doc Evison was the second expert engaged on behalf of the Hanratty family, the previous expert being Dr Patrick Lincoln. We should assume that he also could not come up with an answer to the conundrum stated above.

Ron, why would anybody assume anything when Dr Lincoln was not called at appeal and I have no report of him commenting on the LCN tests. Do you know better?

An English trial is a contest between two rival views. In the present case the views are (1) Jim did it and (2) Jim did not do it. It is up to the prosecution to present the former view and the job of the defence to discredit it, if they can do so and show that the latter view is the correct one then so much the better. It is the job of the jury, no matter how dim its members might be, to decide whether the prosecution has proved its case or whether the defence has thwarted it. I get the impression that some contributors on this forum have ceased to be impartial and have joined the defence team. In fact they have sacked some members of the defence team on the grounds that they made a 'balls up of it' in the Court of Appeal and constituted themselves as their replacements.

I do not see that criticising the defence has anything to do with seeking to be beamed down into their place. As for "they" and "themselves", why don't you just say Derrick and not tar others with the brush aimed at me personally?

Until someone with the requisite knowledge and qualifications and access to the previous test data and to the procedures used, comes up with a viable answer to the conundrum posed above, then all sensible people will (1) regard the DNA evidence as powerful evidence of Jim's guilt and (2) look upon those that disagree as slightly eccentric (nutty).

Ron you have previously said that the original case against Hanratty was not a particularly strong one. You have gone further and called the Bedford jurymen "dim". You are also going against the Reed appeals dictum that DNA evidence alone cannot prove anyones guilt but must be weighted against the whole of the evidence in the case.

You can't have it both ways Ron.

If you cannot except, and I reiterate the point again, that LCN mixed profile interpretation is invalid. then you are not being very sensible in the eyes of accepted science or the law, as it now stands.

I find your arguments on these very basic points to be totally contradictory and to honest nutty, to quote a phrase of your own.

Derrick

[Graham]

What do you mean Graham - a sock puppet? You mean he wasn't really Clive?

Hi Julie,

extract from Forum Major Rules & Consequences:

5. Don't create multiple user accounts

which I believe is also called sock-puppetry. It seems that 'Clive' may well have been a former poster to this thread.

Graham

[Natalie Severn]

Well I am really,really impressed by Derrick"s post on the controversial LCN testing that took place -so many thanks Derrick :

[RonIpstone]

Ron


As I said in my post [6318], which you obviously did not peruse very closely;
Whether anyone who posts here has the requisite scientific knowledge or not, it is quite plain that LCN mixed profile interpretation is invalid.

Hello Derrick,

I do not profess to be a scientist and a lot of what you have written has gone completely over my head. I am therefore ill-equipped to comment on your post, but that is not going to stop me.


I did peruse your post carefully and I am at a loss to understand why you say I did not. If you are saying that I wrote something similar to that which you had written, then I can go back to April of this year where I expressed similar thoughts; yet I did not accuse you of not paying attention to my earlier work.

The trouble with this debate is that to a lesser or greater extent we are all in the dark here. None of us have seen the forensic lab's DNA report, and even if we had, none (very few) would have the expert knowledge to understand the report, let alone subject it to detailed criticism.

Now the gravamen of your argument against the DNA tests is LCN mixed profile interpretation is invalid. I noticed that you have said this four times and each time it has been in bold type. Now this is where my ignorance comes to the fore, are you saying that 'invalid' means 'of no effect' in other words worthless? And are you also saying that Hanratty's DNA was not present in any shape or form, whether as a contaminant or as a primary source (through his seminal fluid)?

Now then, do you accept that VS's DNA was present?
And the same with MG?
I assume that you do not for the same reason you do not accept that Hanratty's DNA was detected and profiled, namely LCN mixed profile interpretation is invalid.

So are you saying that the three profiles thrown up by the tests, Jim, VS and MG could have been the profiles of any three people in the whole wide world, for example yourself, me and say Norma? Do the boffins when they perform theses tests have the DNA profiles that they are looking for to hand, and then look at the test results and the meaningless graphs and say, "bingo, there's Jim's DNA and there's Val's etc"? In other words, they have a preconceived notion of what they are looking for, and the results are interpreted in that light?

Or, do they, the boffins, test the material, in the present case the knicker fragment, isolate or try to isolate DNA profiles and having done so then try to match the profiles so isolated with profiles already on file?

What I am trying to get at is that if the testing produced profiles of VS and MG whose DNA was more than likely to be there, then why should the third profile so isolated be open to question?

As to the evidence, my view is:

1 Val's evidence was compromised by the first (Alphon) id parade;

2. There was circumstantial evidence that Hanratty had possession of the murder weapon in the Vienna on the night before the murder;

3 That evidence was compromised by Acott getting Nudds to change his statement;

4. The rest of the prosecution evidence was not enough to hang a man.

If Jim had not left the safety of the dock he might well be alive today.
But
5. A changed alibi is worse than no alibi and to change it when he did was bound to excite the suspicion of even the most dim and stupid jury;

6 I am convinced that Jim did not stay in Ingledene for the oft cited reason that to have stayed at Ingledene would have meant sleeping in an attic with a bath and Hanratty's accommodation was a rear room with a sink and a window with curtains;

7. The jury heard the evidence and did not believe Hanratty.

8 The DNA tests decisively tip the balance in favour of guilt.

And that is where we started.

I mentioned that Dr Lincoln had been replaced by Dr Evison, so at the very least the Hanratty family had two boffins on the case and we have to assume that the best they could do was what they did which was to accept that Hanratty's DNA was present , but as a contaminant. I

f anyone with access to the test data and with suitable qualifications can come up with an explanation to explain away Hanratty's apparent guilt then we will all be ears. So far this has not happened, all we have had is Bob Woffinden writing in the Oldie saying that funding is needed for a fresh evaluation of the evidence. I think enough is enough but if anyone wishes to donate to the cause then they are welcome to do so. I do not expect a stampede though.

Ron

[Limehouse]

Hi Julie,

extract from Forum Major Rules & Consequences:

5. Don't create multiple user accounts

which I believe is also called sock-puppetry. It seems that 'Clive' may well have been a former poster to this thread.

Graham

Thanks Graham. What a shame. I rather liked Clive.

[Limehouse]

Well I am really,really impressed by Derrick"s post on the controversial LCN testing that took place -so many thanks Derrick :

Me too Norma.

Well done Derrick.