a6 murder

[babybird67]

and...

how come it is all right for Limehouse and Hanratty defenders to bring up other cases, but when i mentioned another case recently in the news it was like the Spanish Inquisition had jumped on me!

Oh yes...i forgot...hypocrisy. Silly me.

[Derrick]

Derrick,

what I posted are not my points; they are what Hanratty told his defence regarding his claim to be in Rhyl on the night in question. You can read in Woffinden, paperback edition, Pages 127 - 8. If you don't believe it, then take it up with Woffinden, not me.

You give the impression that anyone speaking up for Hanratty, however remotely, is to be fully believed, whereas anyone else is a damn liar.

Graham

Graham

Now hold on a minute here pal. I wasn't inferring or explicitly stating that you were making it up but that you had left important bare bones stuff out.

As for your second paragraph that is complete nonsense. How have I expressed this

You give the impression that anyone speaking up for Hanratty, however remotely, is to be fully believed, whereas anyone else is a damn liar.

in this

Hanratty said he asked several people for digs, before coming upon Mrs Jones lodgings.

This has been corroborated fully by the owners of guest houses in the Kinmel Street area, including describing the mans appearance, especially his hair condition. The mention of the man's hair state being similar by more than one person and it being right alone convinces me that it was Hanratty. The other witnesses just add more weight to that opinion.

Timing, some 6 months after the event are always going to be a bit awry. But none are more than an hour out. Mrs Walker gave an additonal statement that said her encounter was at lighting up time as the sun set, around 8:30 to 8:45.

It would also have been very unlikely for Hanratty to have made up the trip to Liverpool on the Tuesday and ask for Carlton or Tarleton Road and have that corroborated by Mrs Dinwoodie. This part of his alibi never changed and the prosecution couldn't counter it in a logical fashion without resorting to fantasy.

Considering that none of the prosecution identification witnesses mentioned the state of the mans hair being similar to the state that Hanratty's was in at the time convinces me that Hanratty was anywhere other than in Rhyl on the night of the 22nd.

Also little point is made of the fact that no one sees Hanratty, with his distinctive hair, supposedly travelling to Liverpool on the Thursday to set up what would be a useless alibi!

Your point 4 is just plain wrong as a Rhyl barber called Gerald Murray seems to remember Hanratty as being a customer. Mr Murray (with Messrs Dutton and Larman) wasn't interviewed by Douglas Nimmo in his oh so thorough Rhyl alibi investigation. Whitewash.

Well am I wrong?

Where in my post (reproduced above) have I called someone else a damned liar? If that is the stength of your argument then if I were you I would give it a rest sunshine.

Derrick

[Limehouse]

how come it is all right for Limehouse and Hanratty defenders to bring up other cases, but when i mentioned another case recently in the news it was like the Spanish Inquisition had jumped on me!

Oh yes...i forgot...hypocrisy. Silly me.

It's completely different. You mentioned the case in Bristol (Jo Yates) suggested that they might as well not do DNA as people would argue it is valueless but you were not basing your argument on a tried and tested case. You were just speculating on what people's reactions might be.

The DNA on the Hanratty/Storie samples were carried out decades after the crime and decades after a trial and court case that was open to criticism.

The case example posted by Derrick was an attempt to show how even relatively fresh samples of DNA can be isolated and identified incorrectly. Therefore - it is valid to question the Hanratty/Storie analysis.

[Victor]

So ? So ? I can hardly believe your attitude. This man spent five in years in prison for the rape of HIS DAUGHTER.

Yes, so Julie, just how is that completely unrelated case relevent to a discussion on Hanratty? Invoking sympathetic feelings and highlighting the extreme trauma that has happened to that family over the past 5 years is just an unnecessary distraction.

For example, what about the other evidence in this case? The conviction can't be based on just the DNA evidence - what about the daughter's testimony? Did she identify her father as her rapist? That's the elephant in the room.

And again, it was the interpretation of those DNA results that were at fault, and the alternative explanation - that the father's DNA was there as a contaminant - is logical and plausible.

It's absolutely pointless identifying the odd case here or there where a misinterpretation has resulted in a miscarriage of justice because it's quite plain they do occur, but how frequent are they? 1 in 100? 1 in 1,000? Unless you do that you may as well continue the argument and let all rapists and murderers go free because their convictions are unsafe too!

KR,
Vic.

[Victor]

The case example posted by Derrick was an attempt to show how even relatively fresh samples of DNA can be isolated and identified incorrectly. Therefore - it is valid to question the Hanratty/Storie analysis.

Erm.. They weren't "identified incorrectly", they were misinterpreted.

KR,
Vic.

[Graham]

Derrick,

Now hold on a minute here pal. I wasn't inferring or explicitly stating that you were making it up but that you had left important bare bones stuff out.

Have you got a copy of Woffinden?

You give the impression that anyone speaking up for Hanratty, however remotely, is to be fully believed, whereas anyone else is a damn liar.

OK, perhaps I should have written this as "Hanratty's supporters give the impression", etc. Because that is precisely the impression that has been given during the several years I've been posting to this thread. To the extent that at least one poster has openly questioned Valerie Storie's integrity.

Timing, some 6 months after the event are always going to be a bit awry. But none are more than an hour out. Mrs Walker gave an additonal statement that said her encounter was at lighting up time as the sun set, around 8:30 to 8:45.

The news vendor Charley Jones said he saw someone looking like Hanratty at about 7.30pm, which would have been impossible given the time of the arrival of the bus from Liverpool. In the event, Jones admitted he was leaned on by Terry Evans to imply that he'd seen Hanratty, but at least between the two of them they might have checked the bus times. I believe at least one other Rhyl "witness" claimed to have seen Hanratty at an impossible time.

The bus arrived at 8.19pm, so if, according to Hanratty, he went to look for Terry Evans, how long would this take him? 5 minutes? 30 minutes? An hour?

Your point 4 is just plain wrong as a Rhyl barber called Gerald Murray seems to remember Hanratty as being a customer. Mr Murray (with Messrs Dutton and Larman) wasn't interviewed by Douglas Nimmo in his oh so thorough Rhyl alibi investigation. Whitewash.

Mr Murray said he thought he'd given a haircut to someone who could have been Hanratty, but Hanratty said he'd been to a barber for a shave.

OK pal?

[NickB]

I wonder if Woffinden is correct that Hanratty claims to have:
a) looked for Evans on the Tuesday night before looking for accommodation;
and
b) visited the fairground on the Wednesday.

The 2002 Appeal, in points 200 and 66 respectively, appears to say that he looked for accommodation upon arrival and then “spent the following day trying to find John but did not go to the fairground”.

In all accounts he responds to the question; “Why didn’t you go to the fairground?”. Of course if he went there on the Wednesday night the question could still have been asked with ‘until the last moment’ on the end.

[Victor]

I wonder if Woffinden is correct...

Oh no Nick, not something else that Woffinden has got wrong!

KR,
Vic.

[babybird67]

It's completely different.

I don't think so.

You mentioned the case in Bristol (Jo Yates) suggested that they might as well not do DNA as people would argue it is valueless but you were not basing your argument on a tried and tested case. You were just speculating on what people's reactions might be.

Yes I did, because the results of the Hanratty case are so conclusive that if they can be questioned, any can be questioned, ergo it's not worth doing any DNA tests whatsoever.

The DNA on the Hanratty/Storie samples were carried out decades after the crime and decades after a trial and court case that was open to criticism.

And?

The case example posted by Derrick was an attempt to show how even relatively fresh samples of DNA can be isolated and identified incorrectly. Therefore - it is valid to question the Hanratty/Storie analysis.

As I think Vic has pointed out, they weren't misidentified, they were misinterpreted. There were innocent explanations for that DNA being there, and alternative sources of it. Neither of those applies in the Hanratty case. It isn't valid to question the Hanratty DNA and hasn't been for some time. Worryingly, that doesn't stop people undermining justice and carrying on doing it though. Hence my Jo parallel.

[Limehouse]

I don't think so.



Yes I did, because the results of the Hanratty case are so conclusive that if they can be questioned, any can be questioned, ergo it's not worth doing any DNA tests whatsoever.



And?



As I think Vic has pointed out, they weren't misidentified, they were misinterpreted. There were innocent explanations for that DNA being there, and alternative sources of it. Neither of those applies in the Hanratty case. It isn't valid to question the Hanratty DNA and hasn't been for some time. Worryingly, that doesn't stop people undermining justice and carrying on doing it though. Hence my Jo parallel.

As there has not been a trial in the Jo Yate's case - any DNA evidence that might inciminate her killer has not yet been discussed and therefore not yet challenged. 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?

Hanratty is ONE case that I have doubts about. ONE. Before the DNA results were known - there were many reasons to doubt the conviction. Those doubts remain despite the DNA. You may be fully convinced that the case is proven and therefore you think that justice has been done. I am not fully convinced. That does not mean I do not uphold justice. It means that in THIS CASE - I am not fully convinced that justice was done.

I think it IS valid to question the DNA and Derrick's example highlights why it is valid to question DNA findings in some cases. 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.

[Derrick]

Erm.. They weren't "identified incorrectly", they were misinterpreted.

Erm... how do you know for sure what happened in "Mr E's" case?

A single peak at one loci could be incorrectly identified as being a heterozygote and reported as having a coupled fail. Whereas it could also be incorrectly identified as a Homozygote at that loci.

To compare, an allele may be misinterpreted as being a real allele when in fact it could be a result of pull up because too much original template was used in the test or a stochastic effect from the opposite of having a low amount of starting template (LCN).

[Tony]

As there has not been a trial in the Jo Yate's case - any DNA evidence that might inciminate her killer has not yet been discussed and therefore not yet challenged. 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?

Hanratty is ONE case that I have doubts about. ONE. Before the DNA results were known - there were many reasons to doubt the conviction. Those doubts remain despite the DNA. You may be fully convinced that the case is proven and therefore you think that justice has been done. I am not fully convinced. That does not mean I do not uphold justice. It means that in THIS CASE - I am not fully convinced that justice was done.

I think it IS valid to question the DNA and Derrick's example highlights why it is valid to question DNA findings in some cases. 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.

Good Evening to you, Limehouse,

Well it would seem that we all have our opinions on the mystical DNA. Personally I don’t know what it looks like, what colour it is or anything else about it. Like you I have to rely on ‘experts’ to tell me all about it and when they have done I am still no wiser.

Now here is a senior police officer’s opinion of this strange DNA stuff.

Colin Stagg was charged with the Rachel Nickell murder in 1993 and when the judge correctly refused to allow the entrapment evidence the police offered no further evidence and the case was thrown out. Colin Stagg was persecuted for years and the police and press stated quite openly that he had got away with murder. His life was a misery; Paul Foot was a staunch supporter of Stagg and believed him to be innocent.

DNA on Rachel Nickell’s underwear was missed in 1993 but when the case was reviewed 10 years later the DNA of Robert Napper was found on her underwear.
I do not know who conducted those first bungled tests. Perhaps someone on here might know.

Colin Stagg and his solicitor begged and pleaded with the police to do a DNA test on Colin Stagg when the DNA was first found. The police refused.
Eventually Robert Napper pleaded guilty to the murder in 2007 and that’s the last we should hear of him.

While Colin Stagg waiting for official confirmation that the DNA was from Napper the Chief Investigating Officer, Keith Pedder, had this to say:

“After this length of time there is always a chance that the integrity of the exhibit, on which it was found, has been compromised
“You have to satisfy yourselves, that the golden thread of continuity has not been broken. I’m unsure whether that can be safely said here, in light of the gigantic advances made in respect of the sensitivity of the DNA science that is now available.
“There were three post mortems carried out on Rachel and each time the case was reviewed her clothing would have been re-examined and been open to contamination.
“The same applies when the sample is matched against that of the new suspect. All these things are carried out in the same lab and it is always possible for secondary transfer to occur”

As Jimmy used to say: “It’s a funny old game.”

Tony.

[Limehouse]

Good Evening to you, Limehouse,

Well it would seem that we all have our opinions on the mystical DNA. Personally I don’t know what it looks like, what colour it is or anything else about it. Like you I have to rely on ‘experts’ to tell me all about it and when they have done I am still no wiser.

Now here is a senior police officer’s opinion of this strange DNA stuff.

Colin Stagg was charged with the Rachel Nickell murder in 1993 and when the judge correctly refused to allow the entrapment evidence the police offered no further evidence and the case was thrown out. Colin Stagg was persecuted for years and the police and press stated quite openly that he had got away with murder. His life was a misery; Paul Foot was a staunch supporter of Stagg and believed him to be innocent.

DNA on Rachel Nickell’s underwear was missed in 1993 but when the case was reviewed 10 years later the DNA of Robert Napper was found on her underwear.
I do not know who conducted those first bungled tests. Perhaps someone on here might know.

Colin Stagg and his solicitor begged and pleaded with the police to do a DNA test on Colin Stagg when the DNA was first found. The police refused.
Eventually Robert Napper pleaded guilty to the murder in 2007 and that’s the last we should hear of him.

While Colin Stagg waiting for official confirmation that the DNA was from Napper the Chief Investigating Officer, Keith Pedder, had this to say:

“After this length of time there is always a chance that the integrity of the exhibit, on which it was found, has been compromised
“You have to satisfy yourselves, that the golden thread of continuity has not been broken. I’m unsure whether that can be safely said here, in light of the gigantic advances made in respect of the sensitivity of the DNA science that is now available.
“There were three post mortems carried out on Rachel and each time the case was reviewed her clothing would have been re-examined and been open to contamination.
“The same applies when the sample is matched against that of the new suspect. All these things are carried out in the same lab and it is always possible for secondary transfer to occur”

As Jimmy used to say: “It’s a funny old game.”

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

[Derrick]

Why does Vic have to demonstrate that when the experts conducting the tests already have?

For the very simple reason sweetheart that Victor said;

results clearly show Hanratty left his semen on Valerie's underwear when he raped her

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.

Anybody can see that! Why can't you?

PS maybe you should start sugaring the opposition as your tagline says!

[Derrick]

Good Evening to you, Limehouse,

Well it would seem that we all have our opinions on the mystical DNA. Personally I don’t know what it looks like, what colour it is or anything else about it. Like you I have to rely on ‘experts’ to tell me all about it and when they have done I am still no wiser.

Now here is a senior police officer’s opinion of this strange DNA stuff.

Colin Stagg was charged with the Rachel Nickell murder in 1993 and when the judge correctly refused to allow the entrapment evidence the police offered no further evidence and the case was thrown out. Colin Stagg was persecuted for years and the police and press stated quite openly that he had got away with murder. His life was a misery; Paul Foot was a staunch supporter of Stagg and believed him to be innocent.

DNA on Rachel Nickell’s underwear was missed in 1993 but when the case was reviewed 10 years later the DNA of Robert Napper was found on her underwear.
I do not know who conducted those first bungled tests. Perhaps someone on here might know.

Colin Stagg and his solicitor begged and pleaded with the police to do a DNA test on Colin Stagg when the DNA was first found. The police refused.
Eventually Robert Napper pleaded guilty to the murder in 2007 and that’s the last we should hear of him.

While Colin Stagg waiting for official confirmation that the DNA was from Napper the Chief Investigating Officer, Keith Pedder, had this to say:

“After this length of time there is always a chance that the integrity of the exhibit, on which it was found, has been compromised
“You have to satisfy yourselves, that the golden thread of continuity has not been broken. I’m unsure whether that can be safely said here, in light of the gigantic advances made in respect of the sensitivity of the DNA science that is now available.
“There were three post mortems carried out on Rachel and each time the case was reviewed her clothing would have been re-examined and been open to contamination.
“The same applies when the sample is matched against that of the new suspect. All these things are carried out in the same lab and it is always possible for secondary transfer to occur”

As Jimmy used to say: “It’s a funny old game.”

Tony.

Hi Tony
Your brilliant research from the Stagg case shows how much that CIO's these days are concerned with the integrity of crime samples and it's reliablity as trial evidence.

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).

Following on from Julie said, come back and post some more.

Derrick