a6 murder

[Natalie Severn]

Leaving aside the Welsh/Scotch bit of the description, what about the incomprehensible bit? Jim seems to have been understood by everyone else, or are you saying that Mrs Jones could not understand him? That Mr Kempt could not understand what he was saying? Who else could not understand Jim.? Mike Sherrard thought Jim had a normal and average Londoner's voice; would all Scousers find Londoners incomprehensible and think that their dialects sounded Welsh or Scotch?

Michael Sherrard speaks with a standardised London accent himself and wasnt faced with Hanratty asking for directions to a road he wasnt sure of the name of .Unless you are from Liverpool ,I suggest you go to Scotland Road and call in a local sweet shop and say you need directions to Tarlton or Carlton Road.See for yourself whether the people there immediately understand you when you ask them for directions to a road you are unsure about the name of .

[JamesDean]

Graham

Agreed that the first pooint to take against Hanratty is that at no stage was his trip to Rhyl mentioned to anyone until he told his lawyers half way through the trial when it was apparent that large holes were going to be blown out of his account of staying in Liverpool. But the devil is in the detail and if the details support Jim's version, or at least cast doubt on the prosecution case, then Jim gets off. The details do not stand up to scrutiny.

I agree that the memory is a peculiar thing and that honest people can make mistakes which have been induced by a lapse of time or suggestion, or a combination of the two.

Ron

Hi Ron,

Is it another of those strange coincidences that follow the A6 murder trail or does the emboldened (by me) part of your post imply that you have been reading this?

http://www.journalonline.co.uk/Magazine/52-2/1003857.aspx

This is a very easy to read article on LCN DNA techniques and gives rise to some need for caution in relying on this as evidence, particularly in cold cases (such as Hanratty).

This is the same Prof Jamieson whose Forensic Institute laboratory carried out the DNA tests on the knicker fragment in the Hanratty appeal. Note the date of this article is well after the Hanratty tests had been carried out and no doubt after many lessons had been learned in the intervening period.

Also we should be aware that this article is not referring to mixed profile analysis, as was carried out on the knicker fragment. Mixed profile analysis is far more speculative and some would argue it is virtually impossible to achieve reliable results even with the current technology which is far more advanced than the technology employed in 2002 when the technique was very much in its infancy and on the bleeding edge of science.

An easy read and I should point out one error in the text where 1014 cells in the body is actually meant to be 10 to the power 14.

If you have read this before Ron, I presume you kept quiet because it did not uphold your long held views. A bit like how Acott cherry picks evidence and ignores that which doesn't fit.

James

[RonIpstone]

If you have read this before Ron, I presume you kept quiet because it did not uphold your long held views. A bit like how Acott cherry picks evidence and ignores that which doesn't fit.

I have not read it before so your presumption is unnecessary.

I have now read it and it does not challenge in any shape of form my long held views, which can be simply restated.

1. No one has denied the possibility that Hanratty's DNA might have got where Hanratty had not been, viz Val's knickers fragment;

2. No one has explained how the rapist's DNA has vanished from the fragment.

By the 'no one' in 2 above I mean someone who has the requisite scientific knowledge and access to the tests performed for the purposes of the 2002 appeal hearing. Docs Evison and Lincoln were both engaged on the Hanratty's family's behalf, and we have not really had a peep out of either of them that addresses this point.

[Natalie Severn]

2. No one has explained how the rapist's DNA has vanished from the fragment.

Does anybody know the answer to the following questions?

a]When the rapist"s semen was taken for analysis in 1961,was it from the knicker fragment or the knickers?
b]How was it removed with a knife or spatula or what?
c] How much was taken---all of it or just a few drops?
d] Was Gregsten"s examined with the same scritiny or was it sufficient to establish it was his and not the rapists?

[Derrick]

This is the same Prof Jamieson whose Forensic Institute laboratory carried out the DNA tests on the knicker fragment in the Hanratty appeal.

James
Neither Professor Allan Jamieson nor the Forensic Institute had any involvement whatsoever in the Hanratty appeal of 2002. You must be thinking of the Forensic Science Service - FSS.
Derrick

[JamesDean]

James
Neither Professor Allan Jamieson nor the Forensic Institute had any involvement whatsoever in the Hanratty appeal of 2002. You must be thinking of the Forensic Science Service - FSS.
Derrick

You are quite correct Derrick. Professor Jamieson and the Forensic Institute were not involved in the Hanratty appeal of 2002. However, Professor Jamieson was involved in both Hoey and Reed both of which discredit LCN.

James

[JamesDean]

hi Ron and all

Maybe Mrs Dinwoodie is just very bad at recognising accents. Is welsh accent much like a scottish one?



viv

They are so unlike that I believe she really just meant that it was an accent that was difficult for her to understand. She may have said welsh/scottish simply because she couldn't place it. Graham points out that many other people had no difficulty understanding Hanratty but that proves nothing. My mother cannot understand anyone who doesn't have a Yorkshire accent so I can say that should she have met Hanratty she would not have understood a word he said. I don't think that my mother is particularly unusual in having difficulty with regional accents.

[Natalie Severn]

Does anybody know the answer to the following questions? If the rapists semen did disappear what role could the various tests to discover the rapists blood group have had, on the fragment of cloth ---since it was the rapists semen that was targeted for extraction and examination in 1961 presumably ---and not the other body fluids from VS and MG? It appears that during those first tests in 1961 [ December 28th] the pathologist [Grant?]may have extracted sufficient seminal fluid to transfer it to a vial that was found in the file in 1991.But even if that were not the case Grant would have needed to extract a certain amount to determine blood group?

So it would be helpful to know answers to the questions I posted viz

a]When the rapist"s semen was taken for analysis in 1961,was it from the knicker fragment from the crotch area or simply from the knickers?
b]How was it removed with a knife or spatula or what?
c] How much was taken---all of it or just a few drops?
d] Was Gregsten"s examined with the same scrutiny or was it sufficient to establish it was his and not the rapists?

[JamesDean]

Does anybody know the answer to the following questions?

a]When the rapist"s semen was taken for analysis in 1961,was it from the knicker fragment or the knickers?
b]How was it removed with a knife or spatula or what?
c] How much was taken---all of it or just a few drops?
d] Was Gregsten"s examined with the same scritiny or was it sufficient to establish it was his and not the rapists?

a) It was from the knickers but we don't know where exactly but it was certainly not from the fragment. There was a large stain extending some 5" up the back of the knickers (I'm going from memory on that fact) and I would assume they took a sample from there. Remember, the purpose of the test was to identify the blood group of the rapist. Testing is destructive in nature so that's a good reason why it couldn't have been the mystical, all knowing fragment.

b) It would have been soaked off into a liquid.

c) They would only have needed a sample so presumably they cut out a piece of the knicker, most likely from the large stain on the back.

d) They identified the rapist semen as belonging to blood group 'O' secretor and it was stated that MG was blood group 'AB' secretor but it's not clear if the MG blood group was taken from his medical records or from a post mortem examination as I don't believe it was acquired from the test on the knickers which raises an interesting point. If the rapist semen stain was on the back of the knickers then there may not have been any rapist semen on the crotch area. The fragment that was used in the DNA tests was from the crotch area and certainly would have MG and VS DNA on it as they had had sex at some stage and her knickers were, presumably, replaced afterwards in a conventional manner so any leakage would be in the area of the crotch. After the rape incident we have a mention of a nurse commenting on the strange way that VS was wearing her knickers which suggests that she had got them twisted or maybe back to front or indeed with one leg through the waistband which could account for why the leakage from the rapist is up the back of the knickers. It is not hard to come to a conclusion, although it has to be said it's pure speculation, that the rapist semen never got anywhere near the crotch area of the knickers and if that is the case then we have a plausible explanation for the supposedly disappearing rapist semen if the Hanratty DNA is contamination. I rest my case and await the inevitable onslaught from the jimdidit brigade.

[JamesDean]

I have not read it before so your presumption is unnecessary.

I have now read it and it does not challenge in any shape of form my long held views, which can be simply restated.

1. No one has denied the possibility that Hanratty's DNA might have got where Hanratty had not been, viz Val's knickers fragment;

2. No one has explained how the rapist's DNA has vanished from the fragment.

By the 'no one' in 2 above I mean someone who has the requisite scientific knowledge and access to the tests performed for the purposes of the 2002 appeal hearing. Docs Evison and Lincoln were both engaged on the Hanratty's family's behalf, and we have not really had a peep out of either of them that addresses this point.

1) Agreed

2) See my post #6414 above for a possible explanation

Dr Lincoln was not involved in the 2002 appeal so his lack of input is hardly surprising. As for Dr Evison, his failure to find a plausible explanation does not of itself preclude the existence of one. I don't think that his area of expertise went outside that of investigating the possibility for contamination. His current area of work and special interest is:

Forensic case work

* Forensic facial comparison ('facial mapping')
* Forensic anthropology and archeology
* Forensic facial reconstruction
* Assessment of potential for contamination or innocent transfer of DNA

James

[Natalie Severn]

Thanks James,all that is helpful though you dont have the detail of the information I was after ,which is a pity.There must be a detailed report somewhere surely---from Dr Grant"s December 1961 testing?
I wonder whether the fragment of cloth actually had the original DNA from the rapist on it?-DNA can disappear completely in certain conditions apparently-http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/06/090608182541.htm
Cheers
Norma

[RonIpstone]

2) See my post #6414 above for a possible explanation

Dr Lincoln was not involved in the 2002 appeal so his lack of input is hardly surprising. As for Dr Evison, his failure to find a plausible explanation does not of itself preclude the existence of one.

Hello James,

My take on this is that the fragment was excised from the part of the knickers which had become stained with the rapist's seminal fluid. It would be a pointless exercise to take a fragment which could have no bearing on the case.

When the results of the tests came through Doc Lincoln opined that it was Hanratty what done it.

Hanratty's brother's solicitors fearing this could be prejudicial to the case decided to get a second opinion and so Doc Evison was retained, but the best he could come up with was his contamination theory.

Ron

[Natalie Severn]

Hello James,

My take on this is that the fragment was excised from the part of the knickers which had become stained with the rapist's seminal fluid. It would be a pointless exercise to take a fragment which could have no bearing on the case.
Ron

OK Ron,
Some information on " disappearing" of DNA---more common than previously thought!

http://www.scientific.org/tutorials/articles/riley/riley.html

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080507124555AAFg8aZ

What I would like to know is how much of the rapists seminal fluid ,presumably targeted as the most important of the three found within the "stain" [ie from MG/VS/rapist] for blood group analysis, was removed from that piece of cloth,in 1961 and how was it removed-by scraping or via a "wash" which was then transferred to a test tube or vial?What happened to the "wash" or "extracted" seminal fluid from Alphon"s clothing,also tested for blood grouping when he was under arrest,and the seminal fluid from the fly area of Hanratty"s trousers ,tested when in custody?

[JamesDean]

Hello James,

My take on this is that the fragment was excised from the part of the knickers which had become stained with the rapist's seminal fluid. It would be a pointless exercise to take a fragment which could have no bearing on the case.

Hello Ron,

The fragment was excised from the crotch area which you would assume to be the area most likely to be contaminated by the rapist's seminal fluid. That may not be the case. It's not colour coded so you can readily see different stains as originating from different people; it's just a stain and may be contributed by one person or several but that's not apparent to the naked eye. As I suggested earlier, the main stain seems to have been located on the back of the knickers and not the crotch area. Any seminal fluid found on the crotch may have been, and probably was, a residue from previous sexual activity with MG. The rapist's seminal fluid may never have come into direct contact with the crotch area due to the strange way that VS had replaced her knickers, which was noted by a nurse at the hospital. Dr Grant may well have taken a sample from the back of the knickers as well as the crotch. Do you have specific information to the contrary?

It's important to remember that the purpose of taking a sample from the clothing was simply to confirm the blood group of the rapist, nothing more significant than that. We shall probably never know the precise nature of what tests, if any, Dr Grant carried out. He may not have tested anything, simply excising a portion of crotch for future use if deemed necessary. If he considered that the police lab had correctly identified the rapist blood group then he may not have tested any portion of the fragment that he took away. We don't know exactly what he did or did not do, unless anyone has specific information on what happened to the samples taken by Dr Grant. We can't just assume that he tested the fragment and found rapist seminal fluid on it unless there is documentary evidence to support this view.

It's also important to understand that the fragment that Dr Grant took is not the fragment that was stored in a police file. They are two distinct fragments.

James

[Natalie Severn]

It's also important to understand that the fragment that Dr Grant took is not the fragment that was stored in a police file. They are two distinct fragments.

Thanks James. That is one of the matters I have been trying to ascertain.Can you provide a source for this statement please?
Norma