a6 murder

[Steve]

Hello Paul

Thanks for this and please do keep us informed if you learn of anything relevant to the A6 murder thread.

Kind regards,
Steve

[jimarilyn]

People in the vicinity thought Mrs Dalal was calling out ‘Essex Murderer!’Yes, Alphon knew the area, but he wandered around all of London. He had nothing better to do. It’s more likely these two attacks were totally unrelated to the A6 murder. At that time several people came forward claiming to be the gunman, and it’s quite probable that criminals tried to divert suspicion away from themselves and towards the A6 murderer.

It's possible that Mrs. Dalal was shouting out "Sex Murderer". It seems as if her attacker was planning to rape her and had she not been able to free her hands (they weren't bound tightly enough), deflect another blow aimed at her head and then remove the gag from her mouth (enabling her to scream out twice) he probably would have raped her.

It's very interesting to note that when the police circulated a description of Alphon a few weeks after the murder they named 6 areas of London which he was known to frequent. Two of these were Kingsbury and Northolt. So Alphon very probably knew of the roadworks which were close to the Kingsbury area. The gunman obviously knew the Northolt area very well as he told Valerie Storie and Mike Gregsten of a cafe he was familiar with in Northolt where they could stop for some food.

[Steve]

The café at Northolt was known by many people who travelled to and from Central London on the Western Avenue. Both Alphon and Hanratty would have known of its existence and possibly used it on occasion. It was still trading until quite recently and only closed after the Swakeleys underpass and Hillingdon crossroads bypass was built. Nowadays only local traffic goes by and I think it is now a taxi office.

Having made the statement about getting something to eat in Northolt it must have quickly occurred to the gunman that walking into a café and ordering mugs of tea and bacon sandwiches at the point of a gun was not really going to work!. Anyway, at the time the Morris Minor would have arrived the café would have closed for the night.

It would be interesting to know if the police made enquiries at the café and showed staff suspects’ photographs.

[johnl]

DNA evidence

Reg 1965
I'm going to try to put this DNA thing finally to rest.
Since you have brought Prof. Jamieson into this I will use three of his quotes, the first from The Guardian 28 Feb 2008 and the latter two from your first link.
" This is where the problems begin. For many cases the issue is not ' Is it my DNA' it is 'How did it get there'"
"The real issue is: Do we know what it means when you see a profile"
" I agree to some extent with the CPS who say it's a case by case basis"
In essence he is discussing contamination, not the science.
As Victor pointed out it is not the science that is the problem but the application.
In the JH appeal there was, with the agreement of both sides, a presumption of contamination. This means that if JH's DNA was found, all things being equal, he would be given the benefit of the doubt.
However the DISTRIBUTION of the DNA and taking in to account the analogy given by Victor the possibility of it being purely from contamination was negligible- hence JH was guilty!
In the new spirit of friendliness could you please reply to posts 1560 and 1594

[JamesDean]

Reg 1965
I'm going to try to put this DNA thing finally to rest.
Since you have brought Prof. Jamieson into this I will use three of his quotes, the first from The Guardian 28 Feb 2008 and the latter two from your first link.
" This is where the problems begin. For many cases the issue is not ' Is it my DNA' it is 'How did it get there'"
"The real issue is: Do we know what it means when you see a profile"
" I agree to some extent with the CPS who say it's a case by case basis"
In essence he is discussing contamination, not the science.
As Victor pointed out it is not the science that is the problem but the application.
In the JH appeal there was, with the agreement of both sides, a presumption of contamination. This means that if JH's DNA was found, all things being equal, he would be given the benefit of the doubt.
However the DISTRIBUTION of the DNA and taking in to account the analogy given by Victor the possibility of it being purely from contamination was negligible- hence JH was guilty!

Hi johnl,

With all due respect you will never succeed in putting the DNA issue to bed. You may make a convincing case for the prosecution but the defence will always contend that there is something flawed about the process as carried out in 2002.

I am very suspicious that only a fragment of Miss Storie's knickers exists and was used in the analysis. Taking the cake analogy to illustrate my point, the coloured sprinkles represent the different DNA on the cake. That's all well and good if you have the whole cake but if you only have a small sliver of cake then you don't know what colour are the sprinkles on the cake that you no longer have. To say that no other male DNA was found on a fragment of knicker, other than that of Hanratty and Gregsten, does not prove that there is/was no other male DNA on another part of the complete garment.

I could also argue from an ethical standpoint that 'perhaps' someone wanted to put this to bed and the test was 'set up' to achieve that end; to bring to an end the speculation that surrounds this case. Can we positively eliminate all possibility of some form of tampering taking place prior to the test being carried out? No, of course we can never be sure. It's an act of faith to believe that could never happen. Evidence is never planted is it?

Finally, do we know that an honest mistake was not made by those responsible for carrying out the testing process? Only recently the Forensic Science Service came in for heavy criticism regarding the DNA results in the Madeleine McCann case. The criticism was so damning that the Leicestershire police and representatives of the FSS went out to Portugal to try to prevent this information leaking into the public domain. Mistakes can and do happen.

I still have doubts over the Hanratty DNA tests. Perhaps they do point to Hanratty being the A6 murderer but there is still sufficient doubt for me to look at other evidence and not rely on a single element of so called proof.

By the way, the hanky was Hanratty's and there is no doubt about that. I don't think the hanky proves anything at all. It could have been planted on the bus along with the gun. I find it hard to believe that Hanratty would dispose of the murder weapon on a bus. He was plainly not stupid.

Regards
James

[jimarilyn]

Hi johnl,

With all due respect you will never succeed in putting the DNA issue to bed. You may make a convincing case for the prosecution but the defence will always contend that there is something flawed about the process as carried out in 2002.

I am very suspicious that only a fragment of Miss Storie's knickers exists and was used in the analysis. Taking the cake analogy to illustrate my point, the coloured sprinkles represent the different DNA on the cake. That's all well and good if you have the whole cake but if you only have a small sliver of cake then you don't know what colour are the sprinkles on the cake that you no longer have. To say that no other male DNA was found on a fragment of knicker, other than that of Hanratty and Gregsten, does not prove that there is/was no other male DNA on another part of the complete garment.

I could also argue from an ethical standpoint that 'perhaps' someone wanted to put this to bed and the test was 'set up' to achieve that end; to bring to an end the speculation that surrounds this case. Can we positively eliminate all possibility of some form of tampering taking place prior to the test being carried out? No, of course we can never be sure. It's an act of faith to believe that could never happen. Evidence is never planted is it?

Finally, do we know that an honest mistake was not made by those responsible for carrying out the testing process? Only recently the Forensic Science Service came in for heavy criticism regarding the DNA results in the Madeleine McCann case. The criticism was so damning that the Leicestershire police and representatives of the FSS went out to Portugal to try to prevent this information leaking into the public domain. Mistakes can and do happen.

I still have doubts over the Hanratty DNA tests. Perhaps they do point to Hanratty being the A6 murderer but there is still sufficient doubt for me to look at other evidence and not rely on a single element of so called proof.

By the way, the hanky was Hanratty's and there is no doubt about that. I don't think the hanky proves anything at all. It could have been planted on the bus along with the gun. I find it hard to believe that Hanratty would dispose of the murder weapon on a bus. He was plainly not stupid.

Regards
James

Hi JamesDean,

Just one word describes your post.........Excellent !!

[johnl]

DNA evidence

hello James Dean
To my knowledge the defence have not subsequently contended that there is something flawed about the process as carried out in 2002.
There may have been some other person's DNA present on another part of the knickers but that would not have been consistent with sexual intercourse having taken place betwen JH and VS would it?
Ah conspiracy! It should be remembered that at the time of the appeal the "establishment" had been so battered by this time by the JH campaigners that they fully expected JH to be exonerated and were as surprised as anybody by the result. If JH had been exonerated what would have happened? The government would have paid up the compensation and moved on, this has happened in many other cases without too much damage to the "establishment" and the case would have soon been forgotten.
Mistakes could have been made but this wouldn't account for the results in this case; perhaps you could give me a scenario.I do not know about the MM case but if you want me to I will research it.
There is no doubt as things stand; in the future who knows?The other evidence also points to JH.
The hanky connected JH to the gun so I think it does prove something,the jury certainly thought so.
Hanratty WAS plainly stupid, though possessing a certain cunning.

Regards johnl

[johnl]

DNA evidence

James Dean
Sorry, in the second para it should have been "inconsistent"

Regards
johnl

[reg1965]

I would also like to welcome new poster Dupplin Muir. A most interesting and thought provoking post. Please stick around and contribute to this great forum thread.

Re JamesDeans post #1610. I too agree that it was an excellent post!

johnl
Re your post #1609.
The article in the Guardian (28/2/09) by Jamieson also includes the paragraphs and I quote
i) "Nevertheless, an "innocent" match being used to assemble a circumstantial case in court raises the very real prospect of false convictions. Excluding any DNA evidence from the case if it has been used to identify the suspect in the first instance might protect against this.
I suspect most people imagine that all DNA profiles obtained emanate from blood, semen, or some other clear stain. But often there is no visible stain at all, and the profile is a mixture. Mixtures create the potential for more difficulty. By way of illustration: if I have profile AB and you have profile CD, our mixed cells would have a profile ABCD. However, the same profile could be produced by two people with profiles AC and BD, or AD and BC. If this mixture was found at a crime scene, we now have six "suspect" profiles. If the person with the BD profile is unlucky enough to live in the area where the crime was committed, BD now needs to explain why he has no association with the material found at the scene. In fact, a mixed profile could generate about 60,000 suspects."

ii) "Failure to use DNA properly will almost certainly result in unintentional but significant damage that could threaten its more restricted but beneficial use. This is a wide-ranging and important debate that requires an understanding of the scientific and procedural aspects of criminal justice systems and the frailties of both."

The full details in article dated 11/4/08 in the Mail Online regarding Jamieson is as follows:-
>>Professor Allan Jamieson, director of The Forensic Institute in Glasgow, said there was no doubt that very small amounts of DNA could be amplified.

"The real issue is: do we know what it means when you see a profile?" he told the BBC.

"For example, when you mix two people's DNA together, it's like mixing the coins in their pockets together. They end up on the table and you have to say which coin came from which person. You simply can't do that."

Asked whether this sort of DNA evidence should be used in court cases, he said: "I agree to some extent with the CPS who say it's a case by case basis."<<

I think in essence what Professor Jamieson is talking about is that the science CAN provide DNA from very small samples but after that it can become unclear what this means when discussing profiling.

I agree with JamesDean (post #1610 ) about the other points you raised here.

Re johnl post #1560
As I have stated that I agree with JamesDean, it is now purely down to the argument over the semantics of the appeal court ruling. In that vein then it is down to whether you agree with it or you don't!
Also the court of appeal, as correctly stated by Mansfield (Appeal Ruling 2002. paragraphs 82-97 in full) is one of review and not the usurper of trial by jury.
I believe that the DNA evidence should have been ruled inadmissable because of the judges lay position on the subject and their ability to truly test the findings one way or another. From this lay position they plumped fully for one, whilst rejecting fresh evidence that may quite possibly have affected the original jury's verdict in favour of acquittal.
Recent finidngs in cases involving DNA, as we have seen, has produced a real doubt as to its integrity in criminal cases and appeal hearings.

I don't feel obliged to respond to Victor's post #1594 as he has not personally asked me to, and I don't see why I should just because you did!
But I will anyway.
The Thalidomide debate is not the focus of this thread and I am not making any more comments on it...enough, unnecesarily heated, debate has been made already.
With regard to his 1st comment, namely "OK Reg, but from the arguments you put forward and are continuing to put forward that didn't appear to be the case." please see my comments above regarding semantics.
And then "Precisely my point, that article confirms it, it isn't the science that is the problem, it's the interpretation of the results!" see the extracts above taken from the articles regarding Professor Jamieson.
I don't think that this has been put to rest either, as JamesDean has also ventured.
Regards
Reg

[johnl]

DNA evidence

Reg 1965
I appreciate all your paragraphs re Prof Jamieson but you are wilfully misinterpreting what he is saying.You originally used the thread to cast doubts on DNA profiling, not as to its use in trials, which Prof. Jamieson support on a case by case basis
So you are going to baldly agree with James Dean's post without refuting mine are you?
Re Michael Mansfield the judges explained their decision.Of course they are lay people, that's why they rely on expert witnesses!The evidence from both sides was taken in to account.
post 1560 was not dealing with the semantics of the appeal, it illustrated that you had not understood the significance of pp115,125 and 126 and proves it.
I can fully understand your reluctance and inability to reply to post 1594!
You do not seem to understand the distinction between semantics and precision in the presentation of one's case.
Don't forget that the DNA road was started upon, with the best of intentions, by the Hanratty family, not the Crown, so it is no good crying foul on their behalf when things go badly.
There is one way to put this matter to rest, you seem to do a lot of research into this so how about posting one single legal or forensic authority refuting the DNA evidence in the Hanaratty appeal ?

Regards johnl

[johnl]

Gun and handkerchief

James Dean
Hello
What exactly is your evidence that the gun and handkerchief were planted on the bus?

Regards johnl

[Tony]

James Dean
Hello
What exactly is your evidence that the gun and handkerchief were planted on the bus?

Regards johnl

Hello johnl,

First time I’ve answered you. I hope I don’t get in as much trouble as Reg.

Of course nobody knows who put the gun and the handkerchief under the seat. No one was actually seen doing this. If Hanratty had been seen then we wouldn’t be sat here discussing it now. Guilty as charged.
Equally nobody saw any other person doing it. Well if they did they have kept very quiet about it.

Hanratty never disputed the conversation with France about using the back seat of a bus as a hiding place.
But he said he used it to sort through his robbed items keeping the good stuff to sell and dumping the rubbish under the seat. He must have known the bus was cleaned (I assume he never found any of his stuff under a seat again after dumping it) so why on earth put a murder weapon there to be found.
He might just as well have posted it to the local police station.
It would have been interesting if the interviewer asked the bus cleaner had he ever found anything else under the seat and the cleaner said: “Well nothing but a load of junk jewellery”.

Go gently with me johnl.

Tony.

[johnl]

The gun and the handkerchief

Tony
I thought your post was very funny and it had me chuckling to myself.
I'm not an ogre who eats babies you know!
I accept that if you believe in Hanratty's innocence then that is a reasonable working hypothesis and, if what the conductress (Pamela Patt??) said was true then doubt would creep in.
I have no problem with opinions, what I dislike is blind, unthinking dogma and wilful distortion of the facts!
All the best

Johnl
ps I'm still chuckling!

[johnl]

Tony
Talking about wilful distortion, I have a few by Foot and the other one which I may use later

regards johnl

[Tony]

Tony
I thought your post was very funny and it had me chuckling to myself.
I'm not an ogre who eats babies you know!
I accept that if you believe in Hanratty's innocence then that is a reasonable working hypothesis and, if what the conductress (Pamela Patt??) said was true then doubt would creep in.
I have no problem with opinions, what I dislike is blind, unthinking dogma and wilful distortion of the facts!
All the best

Johnl
ps I'm still chuckling!

Phew,

I think I got away with that one.

Tony