Tweet
My first post on this forum so hello to everyone.
I was 11 when James Hanratty was executed and I can still remember exactly where I was (at school) as the fateful hour approached. I don't know if it's because I was aware of the case at the time but this has always gripped my imagination and, even after reading all your fabulous posts and the stuff written in the media, I am still sitting on the fence and unable to decide 100% if the case has been irrevocably proved beyond all doubt by the 2002 DNA tests.
I don't want to repeat all the stuff that has already been posted but I will hope to add my own thoughts to the discussion. There is bound to be some overlap so forgive me for that.
I feel, as many of you do, that on the basis of the evidence presented at court, the verdict was flawed and Hanratty should not have been convicted. Perhaps it was a mistake to let Hanratty testify but we shall never know if that alone sealed his fate.
It seems that Miss Storie's identification was a crucial factor. She has always maintained her certainty that it was Hanratty who murdered her lover and raped and shot her in the layby at Deadmans Hill. However, it seems that her identification was made purely on the sound of Hanratty's voice and she did not immediately recognise him visually. She had previously picked out an innocent man in the first line up so I don't have complete faith in her ability to be sure about Hanratty in the second line up. Since Hanratty was hanged she is hardly likely to change her mind and admit to being unsure even if she has had any doubts in private. In fact it would be fair to say she has convinced herself beyond doubt of Hanratty's guilt.
There seems to be some conflicting initial reports of the happenings of that night and I wonder how ready Miss Storie was to admit what she was doing in the cornfield in Dorney Reach? Did the initial account of picking up a hitch hiker come from a reluctance to admit that she was having an affair with Michael Gregsten? When did the story change to a more truthful account of what she and Michael were doing?
Was there a conspiracy? I think there was! I can't accept that James Hanratty just happened to come across the couple in a cornfield at Dorney Reach by accident. The couple had been having an affair for several years. It was well known by Janet Gregsten. I think that what happened was part of a plot to stop the affair. Just my own opinion and I have no proof of that ... yet! Too many coincidences and too many people all seemingly knowing each other. Janet Gregsten looks incredibly relaxed in the photos I have seen, especially the one where she is sitting at home and a newspaper is seen on the floor beside her proclaiming the headline "Hanratty to Die".
The DNA evidence should put all the speculation to bed. James Hanratty was beyond all doubt the A6 murderer ... right? I'm not so sure! I hear conflicting reports of the DNA of three persons on the knickers and then the 2002 DNA test reveals only one DNA and that is of course that of James Hanratty. Convenient! Possibly! I'm not a geneticist but then neither were any of the appeal panel so I have to rely on so called expert testimony. If an expert witness claims that it is two million to one that this match is unique then who am I to query the fact!
But I do know some facts which are sufficient in my mind for reasonable doubt to prevail:
DNA techniques did not exist at the time of the trial so no special care was taken to keep exhibits apart and the items were handled by many people. Therefore cross contamination was not only possible but almost a certainty.
The latest DNA amplification technique requires the most miniscule amount of DNA to achieve a match, therefore the slightest cross contamination can create such a match. Remember that no precautions were taken at the time to keep items apart and to handle them in any way that would eliminate the risk of transferring DNA from item to item.
Hanratty's trousers were washed and the resulting liquid kept in a phial (or phials) for analysis. It is believed that one of these phials broke and the liquid spilt onto other items. I wonder to what extent this has muddied the waters and transferred Hanratty's DNA to other items used in the prosecution? At the time of the trial perhaps this did not matter because the analysis of the contents of the phial had already been done. But the results of subsequent DNA analysis may be skewed by spillage from the phial. Only a maybe but still significant enough to raise some doubt!
Is DNA analysis as foolproof as we are led to believe? The recent Madeleine McCann DNA blunder has brought criticism of the Forensic Science Service:
Extract:
The claim about the DNA evidence is likely to cause the Forensic Science Service embarrassment. Last week representatives of the service went out to Portugal with Leicestershire police to try to prevent the information being made public. Mark Williams-Thomas, a former police officer and a child protection expert, who has knowledge of the report, which dedicates 50 pages to the DNA evidence, said it was "damning".
Full article:
I have more to say but this is a long first post so I'll stop at this juncture. Maybe say more later.
I was 11 when James Hanratty was executed and I can still remember exactly where I was (at school) as the fateful hour approached. I don't know if it's because I was aware of the case at the time but this has always gripped my imagination and, even after reading all your fabulous posts and the stuff written in the media, I am still sitting on the fence and unable to decide 100% if the case has been irrevocably proved beyond all doubt by the 2002 DNA tests.
I don't want to repeat all the stuff that has already been posted but I will hope to add my own thoughts to the discussion. There is bound to be some overlap so forgive me for that.
I feel, as many of you do, that on the basis of the evidence presented at court, the verdict was flawed and Hanratty should not have been convicted. Perhaps it was a mistake to let Hanratty testify but we shall never know if that alone sealed his fate.
It seems that Miss Storie's identification was a crucial factor. She has always maintained her certainty that it was Hanratty who murdered her lover and raped and shot her in the layby at Deadmans Hill. However, it seems that her identification was made purely on the sound of Hanratty's voice and she did not immediately recognise him visually. She had previously picked out an innocent man in the first line up so I don't have complete faith in her ability to be sure about Hanratty in the second line up. Since Hanratty was hanged she is hardly likely to change her mind and admit to being unsure even if she has had any doubts in private. In fact it would be fair to say she has convinced herself beyond doubt of Hanratty's guilt.
There seems to be some conflicting initial reports of the happenings of that night and I wonder how ready Miss Storie was to admit what she was doing in the cornfield in Dorney Reach? Did the initial account of picking up a hitch hiker come from a reluctance to admit that she was having an affair with Michael Gregsten? When did the story change to a more truthful account of what she and Michael were doing?
Was there a conspiracy? I think there was! I can't accept that James Hanratty just happened to come across the couple in a cornfield at Dorney Reach by accident. The couple had been having an affair for several years. It was well known by Janet Gregsten. I think that what happened was part of a plot to stop the affair. Just my own opinion and I have no proof of that ... yet! Too many coincidences and too many people all seemingly knowing each other. Janet Gregsten looks incredibly relaxed in the photos I have seen, especially the one where she is sitting at home and a newspaper is seen on the floor beside her proclaiming the headline "Hanratty to Die".
The DNA evidence should put all the speculation to bed. James Hanratty was beyond all doubt the A6 murderer ... right? I'm not so sure! I hear conflicting reports of the DNA of three persons on the knickers and then the 2002 DNA test reveals only one DNA and that is of course that of James Hanratty. Convenient! Possibly! I'm not a geneticist but then neither were any of the appeal panel so I have to rely on so called expert testimony. If an expert witness claims that it is two million to one that this match is unique then who am I to query the fact!
But I do know some facts which are sufficient in my mind for reasonable doubt to prevail:
DNA techniques did not exist at the time of the trial so no special care was taken to keep exhibits apart and the items were handled by many people. Therefore cross contamination was not only possible but almost a certainty.
The latest DNA amplification technique requires the most miniscule amount of DNA to achieve a match, therefore the slightest cross contamination can create such a match. Remember that no precautions were taken at the time to keep items apart and to handle them in any way that would eliminate the risk of transferring DNA from item to item.
Hanratty's trousers were washed and the resulting liquid kept in a phial (or phials) for analysis. It is believed that one of these phials broke and the liquid spilt onto other items. I wonder to what extent this has muddied the waters and transferred Hanratty's DNA to other items used in the prosecution? At the time of the trial perhaps this did not matter because the analysis of the contents of the phial had already been done. But the results of subsequent DNA analysis may be skewed by spillage from the phial. Only a maybe but still significant enough to raise some doubt!
Is DNA analysis as foolproof as we are led to believe? The recent Madeleine McCann DNA blunder has brought criticism of the Forensic Science Service:
Extract:
The claim about the DNA evidence is likely to cause the Forensic Science Service embarrassment. Last week representatives of the service went out to Portugal with Leicestershire police to try to prevent the information being made public. Mark Williams-Thomas, a former police officer and a child protection expert, who has knowledge of the report, which dedicates 50 pages to the DNA evidence, said it was "damning".
Full article:
I have more to say but this is a long first post so I'll stop at this juncture. Maybe say more later.
Comment