a6 murder

[Natalie Severn]

RonIpstone
Quote:
Originally Posted by Graham
I see no grounds to accuse Valerie of being confused or unreliable. The simple fact is that when confronted with Hanratty, she recognised him.
Hello Graham,

I think I might be with the Jimdidnotdoites (aka The Hanratty Appreciation Society, aaka the Flat Earthers) on this one.

All is forgiven!

[Graham]

Norma, Ron,

I agree that i.d. evidence is sometimes questionable, and I agree that Valerie's i.d. of Hanratty is indeed slightly questionable - but of course I say this with the benefit of hindsight. The fact is that her identification was accepted by the court and obviously the jury accepted it - whether not it was a strong enough identification to hang a man by is naturally open to debate. Which is why we're here. I agree with Ron that there are aspects of the i.d. parade which most certainly can be questioned, but Kleinmann was present and he raised no objections at the time. And yes, I know that when Acott called the parade he requested skull-caps for all participants, but no skull-caps were used. Again, Kleinmann was there to see fair play and raised no objection. Valerie's identification was, I feel, valid, but perhaps not totally watertight if I can put it that way.

Graham

[Graham]

[/B]

All is forgiven!

He said he might be with the Jimdidntdoitites, Norma - not that he is with 'em!

Graham

[Dupplin Muir]

Hello all

An interesting article at http://www.scientific.org/tutorials/...ley/riley.html.

Among some relevant quotes are:

In forensic DNA testing, some of the scientifically worst-case scenarios can be prevented by keeping DNA samples from known individuals well out of range of other items of evidence at all stages.

Is this true of the original examination of the forensic evidence? Since DNA testing was far in the future, why would the people examining the evidence bother?

For example, suppose evidence item #1 has little to no DNA or has DNA degraded beyond the ability to function in a PCR. Suppose further that item #2 is a defendants reference blood stain that would typically have a high concentration of undegraded genomic DNA from the defendant. If item #2 comes in close proximity with item #1, or comes in contact with item #1, the genomic DNA from item #2 may contaminate item #1. Subsequent DNA typing of contaminated item #1 will give the false impression that the defendant contributed DNA to item #1 during a crime. Similarly, when there are multiple items of evidence with some having larger amounts of DNA and some much lower, cross-contamination is an important consideration.

The laboratory should be extremely careful not to overstate the scientific value of the evidence. For example, reports that a profile occurs in 1 in a billion, randomly selected individuals greatly overstate the proven error rate of the technology since false convictions based on DNA evidence have been established. Perhaps such rare match probabilities could be reached if thoroughly independent samples produced the same results in multiple, independent, non-communicating laboratories. But, for single laboratories, extremely rare match probabilities misrepresent the scientific value of technology.

Note here the reference to thoroughly independent samples and also multiple, independent, non-communicating laboratories. Of course, by destroying the samples, FSS have made such necessary checks impossible...

DM

[Victor]

Skillett did identify him.Blackhall did not. Therefore they negate each other

Hi Norma,

Er...no, they do not negate eachother, one is a positive identification, the other says that identification is wrong, but they both can't be right so one of them is mistaken.

Trower did identify him.But the jury accepted from the measurement demonstrations of the defence,that Trower could not have seen the driver in the way he claimed he had seen him.

The jury heard evidence that Trower's ID was questionable, but again that doesn't mean he is wrong.

Two witnesses from Avondale Crescent were never called---presumed to be part of Sherrard"s assertion that wickedness had taken place over certain "withheld evidence".

Lots of witnesses were not called - presumably Sherrard had their names and addresses and could have interviewed them and called them if he so desired.

Valerie is the only other person who identified him and Valerie identified two men as her rapist,one was Michael Clark -who she thought looked like newspaper pictures of Alphon and the other was James Hanratty.

As Graham has pointed out Alphon and Clark were in front of her at the same time, and she thought Clark looked more like her rapist than Alphon.

Yes,Vic,the hanky was subjected to tests but not DNA tests.

DNA testing wasn't around at the time!

KR,
Vic.

[Victor]

Is this true of the original examination of the forensic evidence? Since DNA testing was far in the future, why would the people examining the evidence bother?

Hi DM,

The same is true for blood typing tests, so yes it was known and precautions were taken.

Note here the reference to thoroughly independent samples and also multiple, independent, non-communicating laboratories. Of course, by destroying the samples, FSS have made such necessary checks impossible...

All DNA testing is destructive - the sample is consumed during the test, that's well known and widely known. Suggesting that FSS deliberately and unnecessarily destroyed the samples is a looney tunes conspiracy theory.

KR,
Vic.

[RonIpstone]

Hello all

An interesting article at http://www.scientific.org/tutorials/...ley/riley.html.

Among some relevant quotes are:



Is this true of the original examination of the forensic evidence? Since DNA testing was far in the future, why would the people examining the evidence bother?





Note here the reference to thoroughly independent samples and also multiple, independent, non-communicating laboratories. Of course, by destroying the samples, FSS have made such necessary checks impossible...

DM

Do I detect signs of dissension and disagreement amongst the ranks of the Jimdidnotdoites? We should not forget that it was Bob Woffinden and Jim's family's solicitors that wanted the DNA tests to exonerate Jim. Others in the Hanratty camp are now regretting that those tests were ever carried out. As mentioned above in an earlier (and well received) post of mine, the tests seem to have exonerated Pete Alphon and left Jim looking as guilty as sin in the minds of all right and fair thinking people.


Ron

[Natalie Severn]

Do I detect signs of dissension and disagreement amongst the ranks of the Jimdidnotdoites? We should not forget that it was Bob Woffinden and Jim's family's solicitors that wanted the DNA tests to exonerate Jim. Others in the Hanratty camp are now regretting that those tests were ever carried out. As mentioned above in an earlier (and well received) post of mine, the tests seem to have exonerated Pete Alphon and left Jim looking as guilty as sin in the minds of all right and fair thinking people.


Ron

While I believe Bob Woffinden has written a very well researched and presented book on the case , I doubt his understanding of the case ,in terms of the law , stood comparison with either Foot"s or Sherrard"s.Mansfield doesn"t appear to have been fully attentive on this one---IMHO.But I am rather impressed that you did not include Paul Foot, Ron.
Paul had always known full well the lengths they would go to defend themselves .So did Michael Sherrard QC.---who nevertheless played by the rules.

Best,
Loonybins

[NickB]

Modern forensic hand-writing tests reveal that much of what the jury were told that Hanratty had lied about was true--- to quote Michael Sherrard QC on this matter :
"Hanratty would have been proved to have been telling the truth about much of what had been altered

Sherrard is wrong on this. There is no evidence anything was altered. The analysis showed that the same passages had been re-written - not different passages.

An innocent explantion is that Oxford was re-writing his notes more clearly before Acott and he had to copy the notes into their respective report books. Of course it is possible he altered them in doing so, but not definite.

This also only concerns the first interview in Blackpool. His continued denial of guilt is reported in the notes, so apart from the 'kip' reference I don't see what Sherrard thinks might have been altered.

[Natalie Severn]

Er...no, they do not negate eachother, one is a positive identification, the other says that identification is wrong, but they both can't be right so one of them is mistaken.

Ok.Skillett was mistaken-

The jury heard evidence that Trower's ID was questionable, but again that doesn't mean he is wrong.

Even when Margaret Thompson who lived in Avondale Crescent, Doreen Milne who had parked her identical Morris Minor directly opposite at 8.15 that day both back up Paddy Hogan by telling police the Morris Minor Murder Car was not there?
Kind Regards

Nats the Flatearther

[Natalie Severn]

Sherrard is wrong on this. There is no evidence anything was altered. The analysis showed that the same passages had been re-written - not different passages.

An innocent explantion is that Oxford was re-writing his notes more clearly before Acott and he had to copy the notes into their respective report books. Of course it is possible he altered them in doing so, but not definite.

This also only concerns the first interview in Blackpool. His continued denial of guilt is reported in the notes, so apart from the 'kip' reference I don't see what Sherrard thinks might have been altered.

So you are accusing Michael Sherrard QC of lying ? He repeats his claim twice and it is in his summary.He suggests it would have made a great deal of difference as to whether Hanratty was acquitted or whether he was executed because he believes it showed Hanratty had told the truth "about much of what had been altered".

[Victor]

The fragment of cloth was not kept in the recommended , bacteria free storage conditions at a lab in a South London police station for 31 years was it? Likewise the hanky kept at Bedford police station for even longer.
How can anyone therefore,in all good faith , say they know for certain that neither of these items were ever exposed to the type of contamination that could have given a most misleading result?

Hi Norma,

In the case of the knickers because 3 DNA profiles were detected - VS, MG and Hanratty - with no extra profile from the rapist, which leads to the conclusion that there was no contamination.

In the case of the hanky because James Hanratty's DNA profile was detected only in the areas of mucous staining and nowhere else, which means that either the contamination was impossibly selective, or there was no contamination.

We do now know after all that "witness statements" were "tampered with" when Hanratty was in police custody. Modern forensic hand-writing tests reveal that much of what the jury were told that Hanratty had lied about was true

Wrong.

Is it therefore so far fetched to be concerned about what might have happened to the fate of the two 40 year old pieces of cloth while in police custody?

Yes it is.

Will we ever be told who actually had access to them?

We have.

We know the pathologist in December 1961 obtained seminal fluid from Hanratty"s trousers through a wash and it seems quite likely this was put into the vial which was found broken and separated from its rubber plug in amongst the piece of cloth from the knickers that had been placed in a sealed brown envelope of which the edges had come free.So to me and others it seems as though that is one area where DNA could have seeped through onto other locker contents and given a false reading.

It is equally possible that the vial contained a sample from Peter Alphon.

We also know already that the hanky was actually handled by Hanratty and others at his trial.

Do we? In any case there was no contamination - see above.

I did have a link to the ban on LCN DNA testing which I will should be able to find tonight, re your question-but I am not in London so I dont have at hand various notes I made at the time, but I think I know which American sites I used and will check them out.What I recall is that in numbers of American States, the Courts of Appeal have been banned from using such LCN DNA test results as were used in the case of James Hanratty in 2002.

As I said before, the link you gave to Budowle's evaluation stated that LCN has evidential uses, although it is not yet admissible evidence in Court.

KR,
Vic.

[Victor]

Ok.Skillett was mistaken-

Hi Norma,

The rest of the evidence suggests that it was Blackhall who was mistaken.

Even when Margaret Thompson who lived in Avondale Crescent, Doreen Milne who had parked her identical Morris Minor directly opposite at 8.15 that day both back up Paddy Hogan by telling police the Morris Minor Murder Car was not there?

Why are you ignoring Doris Althoe?

KR,
Vic.

[Victor]

So you are accusing Michael Sherrard QC of lying ? He repeats his claim twice and it is in his summary.He suggests it would have made a great deal of difference as to whether Hanratty was acquitted or whether he was executed because he believes it showed Hanratty had told the truth "about much of what had been altered".

Well Norma, we know he was mistaken or lying about the "on ice" and "frozen" comments, so maybe he is again.

KR,
Vic.

[Natalie Severn]

Hi Vic,

Quote:[Natalie Severn wrote]
We do now know after all that "witness statements" were "tampered with" when Hanratty was in police custody. Modern forensic hand-writing tests reveal that much of what the jury were told that Hanratty had lied about was true

Vic wrote: Wrong.

Then ,since this is what I have understood from Michael Sherrard"s recent biography and I have quoted what he said in a previous post, you,like Nick,are calling Michael Sherrard QC a liar? I see.