a6 murder

[Tony]

Hi Tony

Nice to see you posting again.

Do you happen to know if the DNA tests in the Nickell case were of the LCN type?

Julie

Hello Julie,

Yes the tests were LCN and this is the outcome:

Forensic scientists, carrying out a review of the case in 2001, made an appalling blunder. They failed to test the tiny DNA sample found on Rachel’s body; had they done so they would have matched it to Napper’s, which by that time was on the database.

This wasn’t the only potential mistake by the Forensic Science Service:

The Times: February 22, 2007:

Hundreds of murderers, rapists and other serious criminals may have escaped prosecution because forensic scientists failed to test properly for DNA evidence for five years. More than 2,000 cases are being urgently reviewed — including that of Rachel Nickell, the former model murdered on Wimbledon Common — after the Forensic Science Service admitted that it might have missed crucial evidence.
The service, which carries out most DNA tests for police forces in England and Wales, expects to recover DNA in at least 200 cases where it had said that none existed.
The Times has learnt that chief constables believe that the total could be higher. The failure involves the processing between 2000 and 2005 of “low-copy-number” tests, used to identify microscopic quantities of DNA.
The Association of Chief Police Officers wrote to all police forces yesterday asking them to carry out a review of their serious crime cases.

Tony.

[Limehouse]

Hi Tony

Thanks for getting back to me. Wow! So much for the 'value' of 'conclusive' DNA tests - not much value of they are not even conducted properly!

My suspicion is that the scientists have so much faith in the science that they become careless and complacent.

The Forensic Science Service is based in Huntingdon - a town about 20 miles down the A1 from my home in Peterborough. They are being disbanded as part of the coalition's plan to cut the 'deficit'.

Keep posting Tony.

Julie

[RonIpstone]

I am most reluctant to interrupt the flow of argument emanating from the distinguished scientists that comprise the Hanratty Appreciation Society but I feel constrained to do so and to make the following observations.

When the DNA tests were conducted they were done so under the supervision of at least two boffins (forensic scientists) appointed by the Defence Solicitors acting for the Hanratty family. The first, Doc Pat Lincoln, even went on camera to state that he was optimistic that the DNA tests would be conclusive as to the identity of the murderer/rapist. Doc Lincoln did not do the appeal and in his stead we found Doc Evison giving evidence for the Defence in Jim's (second) appeal.

Therefore:

1. At no stage has any boffin acting for Hanratty argued that the tests were carried out negligently or improperly.

2. No forensic scientist, who has seen the test results and had access to information regarding the test processes, has stated that Jim's DNA was not detected and properly identified.

3. It has been argued and accepted by the Court of Appeal that there was a possible contamination of the exhibit,

4. If Jim's DNA is present as a contaminant then where is the rapist's DNA? Bear in mind that the exhibit had been tested for blood grouping and given a positive blood group O before Hanratty came on the scene.


If a further appeal is to be mounted, and in this regard I do not think that it is seriously being considered, at least not to the extent of anyone putting any money towards the cause, then the vanishing DNA of the rapist will have to be addressed. For this another forensic scientist will have to state how this could have occurred. Has such a scientist been instructed? I think not. On the recent Radio 4 prog about Jim's next appeal a charming lady boffin wheeled out, but she admitted that she had not seen the test results. Furthermore, Jim's Solicitor when interviewed did not say he had further forensic evidence.

I am sorry to have to tell it like it is, but I suspect that the facts will not get in the way of the flights of fantasy which have been expressed above and we can look forward to many more tales of homozygotes, heterozygotes, mairzy doats, dozy doats and liddle lamzy divey, all delivered with the authority of someone who does not know what he is talking about.

[Tony]

I am most reluctant to interrupt the flow of argument emanating from the distinguished scientists that comprise the Hanratty Appreciation Society but I feel constrained to do so and to make the following observations.

When the DNA tests were conducted they were done so under the supervision of at least two boffins (forensic scientists) appointed by the Defence Solicitors acting for the Hanratty family. The first, Doc Pat Lincoln, even went on camera to state that he was optimistic that the DNA tests would be conclusive as to the identity of the murderer/rapist. Doc Lincoln did not do the appeal and in his stead we found Doc Evison giving evidence for the Defence in Jim's (second) appeal.

Therefore:

1. At no stage has any boffin acting for Hanratty argued that the tests were carried out negligently or improperly.

2. No forensic scientist, who has seen the test results and had access to information regarding the test processes, has stated that Jim's DNA was not detected and properly identified.

3. It has been argued and accepted by the Court of Appeal that there was a possible contamination of the exhibit,

4. If Jim's DNA is present as a contaminant then where is the rapist's DNA? Bear in mind that the exhibit had been tested for blood grouping and given a positive blood group O before Hanratty came on the scene.


If a further appeal is to be mounted, and in this regard I do not think that it is seriously being considered, at least not to the extent of anyone putting any money towards the cause, then the vanishing DNA of the rapist will have to be addressed. For this another forensic scientist will have to state how this could have occurred. Has such a scientist been instructed? I think not. On the recent Radio 4 prog about Jim's next appeal a charming lady boffin wheeled out, but she admitted that she had not seen the test results. Furthermore, Jim's Solicitor when interviewed did not say he had further forensic evidence.

I am sorry to have to tell it like it is, but I suspect that the facts will not get in the way of the flights of fantasy which have been expressed above and we can look forward to many more tales of homozygotes, heterozygotes, mairzy doats, dozy doats and liddle lamzy divey, all delivered with the authority of someone who does not know what he is talking about.

Hello Ron,

I don’t know if your post refers directly to me or not. If it does I can only say the following:

I never knew James Hanratty. From what I read about his activities as a housebreaker and car thief he would be someone that I would steer well clear of.
So I am most certainly not part of any Appreciation Society that you believe to exist.

You are correct I know nothing at all about DNA. Absolutely nothing whatsoever. But I do have the ability to read.

The other day I read an article that stated that forensic scientists whilst looking for the DNA of Colin Stagg on Rachel Nickell had missed the DNA that was present from the real murderer Robert Napper.
Following from this The Association of Chief Police Officers wrote to all police forces asking them to carry out a review of all serious crime cases.

Now, as I say I do not possess your expertise in these matters but maybe you could help me. What is the difference in the case of Stagg and Hanratty?

You shall have to make allowances here for me for although I am not a Bedfordshire dimwit as you believe people from Bedford to be I am from Derbyshire and here we are: “Derbyshire born, Derbyshire bred: strong in th’arm and thick in yead”

Thanks Ron.

Tony.

[Graham]

Superbly put, Ron, especially the very first and last paragraphs, but all your points are eminently logical, at least to me.

No-one would deny the right for anyone to debate the DNA evidence in the A6 Case, but until an independent, professional, qualified, forensic scientist is able to prove that the DNA analysis in the Hanratty Case is suspect, I will continue to accept the results. It seems to me to be pointless forever raising other criminal cases in which DNA has been used.

Graham

[Victor]

You are surely not claiming that just because a group of people do not accept the DNA findings in one case - they will automatically apply the same reasoning to all cases? Even those cases that have not even been before the courts?

Hi Julie,

But that is exactly what Derrick and others are suggesting. They do not accept the results in the Mr E case (or Colin Stagg, &tc) and therefore we should not accept the results in the Hanratty case. I'm glad you accept the fallacy of this argument.

Before the DNA results were known - there were many reasons to doubt the conviction. Those doubts remain despite the DNA.

Before the DNA there were doubts, which the DNA result should have removed - and for most people it has (see the Poll thread)

Whether the substances were misidentified or misinterpreted the result was the same - a man imprisoned - but in Hanratty's case and man hanged by his neck until it broke.

Misidentified - the result was wrong.
Misinterpretted - the result was correct, but the conclusions reached from that result were wrong.

In Mr E's case (from the link Derrick posted) the father's DNA was correctly identified as being present but the explanation given was wrong. Of course this particular case will be complicated because the daughter's DNA profile will match the father's by at least 50%.

KR,
Vic.

[Victor]

For the very simple reason sweetheart that Victor said;

And to think I was recently called a chauvanist!

The actual results are unknown to anyone here so Victor must support his opinion with solid evidence as source tissue is unknowable from DNA testing.

Paragraph 120 from the judgment:
Dr Evison [the Defence expert] seems to accept that in the case of the knicker fragment the contaminant would have to be semen.

Anybody can see that! Why can't you?

Yes, why can't you see that?

KR,
Vic.

[Victor]

The Nickell case is from 1993. Hanratty from 1961. The CA in 2002 didn't have a clue what had happened to the exhibits at times. The so called "golden thread" was obviously broken in this case. Plus Grant examined, first Hanratty's green suit then the next day VS's knickers. Same lab, ergo contamination hazard (in 1961).

Hi Derrick,

Yes we all know that the possibility of contamination could not be excluded - but the results show it didn't happen.

KR,
Vic.

[Victor]

Forensic scientists, carrying out a review of the case in 2001, made an appalling blunder. They failed to test the tiny DNA sample found on Rachel’s body; had they done so they would have matched it to Napper’s, which by that time was on the database.

Hi Tony,

It's good to see you back posting. I hope you noted that there was no problem with the LCN tests that were conducted, it's the lack testing that was the problem in the Stagg case, and presumably the other 200-2,000 you mentioned too.

That means that Paul Foot was actually calling for more LCN DNA testing to be done, and simultaneously not believing the results that it gave, so what was the point of calling for the testing?

The logical conclusion is that Foot should have been arguing that the result exonerating Stagg should be considered as unsafe as he believes the result confirming Hanratty's guilt is, and therefore Stagg should still be in jail.

KR,
Vic.

[RonIpstone]

The other day I read an article that stated that forensic scientists whilst looking for the DNA of Colin Stagg on Rachel Nickell had missed the DNA that was present from the real murderer Robert Napper.
Following from this The Association of Chief Police Officers wrote to all police forces asking them to carry out a review of all serious crime cases.

Now, as I say I do not possess your expertise in these matters but maybe you could help me. What is the difference in the case of Stagg and Hanratty?

Hello Tony,

I claim no expertise "in these matters".

From what you have posted, it would seem that the FSS missed material which might have given a profile of the murderer. It was not looking for the DNA of Stagg (indeed it seems that no DNA profile of Stagg has ever been taken).

In the Hanratty case the material is the semen stained knickers fragment which undoubtedly was impressed with the DNA material of the rapist at some stage in its history. This material has been tested by the FSS under the supervision of the Hanratty lawyers and revealed JH's, VS's and MG's DNA profile, with the main contributor being JH. All of which points to JH being the rapist and murderer.

You shall have to make allowances here for me for although I am not a Bedfordshire dimwit as you believe people from Bedford to be I am from Derbyshire and here we are: “Derbyshire born, Derbyshire bred: strong in th’arm and thick in yead”

I must make it clear that I do not believe all people from Bedfordshire to be dimwits, only a high proportion and this was reflected in the intellectual composition of the jury.

Graham Swanwick was a Derbyshire man, his birth being registered in Chesterfield in 1906, so this might explain his conduct in the prosecution of Hanratty and the persecution of Mrs Jones. The family name 'Swanwick' is an old established Derbyshire name deriving from the village of that name in the county. Many Swanwicks left Derbyshire due to the ravishes of the bubonic plague in 17th Century, but it would seem that Graham's ancestors survived and even thrived in Derbyshire and his dad even became a solicitor there.

The judge, Bill Gorman, was a Lancashire lad and, as is common with most Lancastrians, had a great deal of common sense as well as a brilliant mind. I assume that Michael Sherrard was (and is) from the Home Counties and seems to have been out of his depth when dealing with his more intelligent northern counterparts.

It was Jim's bad planning which led to him being tried by a Bedfordshire jury and defended by a bloke from the Home Counties. If he had made Gregsten drive a bit further up the A6 he could have secured a Derbyshire jury, or further up and better still, a Lancashire jury.

Ron

[caz]

Blimey, on my last visit you lot were only up to page 625 and now there are 777 of the little buggers and still no sign of Hanratty being exonerated on account of his semen turning up on the rape victim's underwear.

Quelle surprise.

Carry on chaps. I'll pop in again after about another 150 pages shall I?

Love,

Caz
X

By the way, I was in Rhyl last summer, walking along the front, as one does, and Tarleton Street suddenly jumped out and grabbed me by the throat. Couldn't miss it. I often wonder how Hanratty managed to miss it, if he was really there for the crucial period and had only the day before been asking in Liverpool for directions to Liverpool's own Tarleton Street.

[Black Rabbit]

I must make it clear that I do not believe all people from Bedfordshire to be dimwits, only a high proportion and this was reflected in the intellectual composition of the jury.

Ron

Do I detect the rants of a childish ignorant, arrogant bigot?
Or can you justify your statement?

You could at least apologise for insulting us Bedfordians but you don't seem to care. I pity you.

[caz]

I might just as easily [and perhaps more credibly ] speculate that Alphon was a "hit man" hired by Gregston"s family to scare him off his relationship with Valerie Storie.That that was why £5,000 was paid into his bank in three separate installments that Autumn -together with the £2,700 received from Newspaper"s for "The Story of his Arrest for the A6 Murder".That the arrangement to shock and put the frighteners on the affair suddenly went dramatically wrong when Gregsten hit him with his duffle bag frightening Alphon into shooting him by accident!

Hi Nats,

Just saw this in one of your posts from last summer and wondered if it had been dealt with yet, or if you still think this a possibility?

How likely is it that anyone would be stupid enough to pay a penny into Loose Lips Alphon's bank account when they found their plan had gone horribly wrong and their chosen 'frightener' had committed rape and the capital crime of murder? No monetary inducements beforehand, mind, just after the failure of this cunning plan. What could Alphon, now a rapist and murderer, have done about it if he had received nothing, because he screwed up and any paymaster would now be in a deeply precarious position if they still paid him? He could hardly have complained to anyone about non-payment of fees!

Love,

Caz
X

[Limehouse]

[QUOTE=Victor;163713]Hi Julie,

But that is exactly what Derrick and others are suggesting. They do not accept the results in the Mr E case (or Colin Stagg, &tc) and therefore we should not accept the results in the Hanratty case. I'm glad you accept the fallacy of this argument.

That is a complete misrepresentation of what I was explaining to Babybird. Babybird was speculating on people's reaction to the DNA analysis in other cases and she specifically mentioned Jo Yates in Bristol - the scientific details of which have not been made public. There is a difference between comparing cases that have been tested and found wanting and cases that have not even seen the inside of a court room.

[Derrick]

By the way, I was in Rhyl last summer, walking along the front, as one does, and Tarleton Street suddenly jumped out and grabbed me by the throat. Couldn't miss it. I often wonder how Hanratty managed to miss it, if he was really there for the crucial period and had only the day before been asking in Liverpool for directions to Liverpool's own Tarleton Street.

There is a Tarleton Street in Liverpool, Rhyl, Burnley and Manchester.