a6 murder

[Victor]

The DNA test was on the fragment; the fragment came from the crotch area of the knickers. The crotch area may never have come into contact with the rapist's semen (see my post #1928) if VS was wearing her knickers after the event in a strange way as had been commented on by a nurse at the hospital. There is no doubt that the rapist's semen leaked onto some part of the garment but there is no proof that it was on the crotch area. The crotch area was undoubtedly stained with semen and vaginal fluid from the earlier sexual activity between MG and VS.

If the rapist's semen didn't get onto the crotch area then it couldn't be on the fragment. No magic disappearing trick needed to achieve that.

Regards
James

BUT IT DID...
para 113
"They were found to be stained with seminal fluid in the area of the crotch and at the back for five inches upwards from the crotch. Vaginal fluid from Valerie Storie was also present. There were smaller quantities of seminal fluid of blood group AB assumed to have come at some earlier stage from Michael Gregsten."

[JamesDean]

Hell James
If the rapist had sexual intercourse with VS the semen HAD to get on to the crotch area whether they were put on back-to-front or inside out, where else was it supposed to go?
All the best
johnl

We don't know how she was wearing her knickers but a nurse at the hospital commented on the strange way she was wearing her underwear. In the pitch darkness of the layby and under the awful circumstances of the events that had just taken place it is not surprising that Valerie Storie hurriedly replaced her knickers in a strange way. They may have been replaced so one leg hole (for want of a better description) was around her waist; the crotch area would then be nowhere near her crotch.

Regards
James

[JamesDean]

"They were found to be stained with seminal fluid in the area of the crotch and at the back for five inches upwards from the crotch.

That's just a visual description of the knickers. We don't know which part of the knickers they blood typed the semen stains from. It's hardly likely in 1961 they would test different parts of the garment. Once they had the blood type they would consider it 'job done'.

[Tony]

We don't know how she was wearing her knickers but a nurse at the hospital commented on the strange way she was wearing her underwear. In the pitch darkness of the layby and under the awful circumstances of the events that had just taken place it is not surprising that Valerie Storie hurriedly replaced her knickers in a strange way. They may have been replaced so one leg hole (for want of a better description) was around her waist; the crotch area would then be nowhere near her crotch.

Regards
James

Hello James Dean,

It was me that first drew attention to the nurse at the hospital commenting that her undergarments were strangely arranged.

I have come across this information just recently and I have tried, not very hard, to retrieve it.
I will have another look. It certainly made an impression on me and I did not just dismiss it but filed it in my mind as ‘something’.

I’ll turn it up shortly.

Tony

[johnl]

We don't know how she was wearing her knickers but a nurse at the hospital commented on the strange way she was wearing her underwear. In the pitch darkness of the layby and under the awful circumstances of the events that had just taken place it is not surprising that Valerie Storie hurriedly replaced her knickers in a strange way. They may have been replaced so one leg hole (for want of a better description) was around her waist; the crotch area would then be nowhere near her crotch.

Regards
James

Hello James
I will assume you are being serious for the sake of argument.
Right then, so how did JH"s DNA then get on the fabric, consistent with sexual intercourse having taken place between himself and VS?
Additionally if semen stains were seen on the sides of the knickers wouldn't they have taken those pieces as well as the crotch for examination,before throwing the rest away, bearing in mind that they would have known that VS had also had sexual intercourse with MG ? Not to have done so would have been throwing the evidence away which proved the blood group of the rapist.

All the best
johnl

[JamesDean]

Hello James Dean,

It was me that first drew attention to the nurse at the hospital commenting that her undergarments were strangely arranged.

I have come across this information just recently and I have tried, not very hard, to retrieve it.
I will have another look. It certainly made an impression on me and I did not just dismiss it but filed it in my mind as ‘something’.

I’ll turn it up shortly.

Tony

Hi Tony

Thanks for that. It could certainly account for semen stains from the rapist getting onto the garment but not on the crotch area and therefore, by definition, not on the fragment used in the 1995 and 2002 DNA tests. Perhaps the only semen stain on the crotch, and therefore the fragment, is that of MG from previous sexual activity with VS. I have always felt that the fragment is not necessarily representative of the whole garment; in the cake analogy do the coloured sprinkles on a small slice of cake represent an accurate picture of the original cake in its entirety?

Regards
James

[johnl]

Hello James
I will assume you are being serious for the sake of argument.
Right then, so how did JH"s DNA then get on the fabric, consistent with sexual intercourse having taken place between himself and VS?
Additionally if semen stains were seen on the sides of the knickers wouldn't they have taken those pieces as well as the crotch for examination,before throwing the rest away, bearing in mind that they would have known that VS had also had sexual intercourse with MG ? Not to have done so would have been throwing the evidence away which proved the blood group of the rapist.

All the best
johnl

Just in case our posts "crossed"
johnl

[JamesDean]

Hello James
Right then, so how did JH"s DNA then get on the fabric, consistent with sexual intercourse having taken place between himself and VS?

Hello johnl

As you have said on many occasions, the judges 'presumed contamination'.

They also presumed that the rapist's DNA must be on the fragment and as the only DNA found matched JH, MG and VS that left the only conclusion that JH must be the rapist and killer of MG.

I am challenging the assumption that the rapist's DNA must be on the fragment. I accept that it must be somewhere on the knickers but not necessarily on the fragment. The rapist's DNA did not disappear from the fragment by magic and neither did it get overridden by JH contamination ... it was simply never there in the first place!

Regards
James

[johnl]

Hello johnl

As you have said on many occasions, the judges 'presumed contamination'.

They also presumed that the rapist's DNA must be on the fragment and as the only DNA found matched JH, MG and VS that left the only conclusion that JH must be the rapist and killer of MG.

I am challenging the assumption that the rapist's DNA must be on the fragment. I accept that it must be somewhere on the knickers but not necessarily on the fragment.

Regards
James

Hello James
Not good enough!!
Sexual intercourse took place between JH and VS as proved by the distribution. PLUS:-
With forensic science being as it was at that time the reason for keeping the fragment was to PROVE the blood group of the rapist, in that case they would have kept this "other" fragment and disposed of the crotch-is that not so?
And where we find evidence of the blood group we also find the DNA!!
All the best
johnl

[JamesDean]

Sexual intercourse took place between JH and VS as proved by the distribution.

I think that's meaningless and just an assumption. If the distribution of DNA was so significant you would not have to consider any other factor. Why did they bother to look for the DNA of 'the rapist'?

PLUS:-
With forensic science being as it was at that time the reason for keeping the fragment was to PROVE the blood group of the rapist, in that case they would have kept this "other" fragment and disposed of the crotch-is that not so?

Pure assumption on your part I'm afraid. Do you have proof of that statement?

Was the pathologist, Dr Grant, part of the prosecution or defence?

Regards
James

[johnl]

I think that's meaningless and just an assumption. If the distribution of DNA was so significant you would not have to consider any other factor.



Pure assumption on your part I'm afraid.

Was the pathologist, Dr Grant, part of the prosecution or defence?

Regards
James

As I have pointed out before there were two factors to be considered<
It's certainly not assumption, the only reason for keeping the fragment is EVIDENCE, in this case of the blood group. If proof of the blood group had been anywhere else they would have HAD to keep it in case of refutation by the defence, either at the trial or subsequent APPEAL.
All the best
johnl

[reg1965]

from the appeal court ruling.

108. No doubt conscious of developments in this area there came a time in 1995 when the Hanratty family were anxious to apply DNA testing to such of the exhibits as had survived and which might show one way or the other whether James Hanratty had been responsible for the murder of Michael Gregsten and the rape of Valerie Storie. Attempts made in March 1995 were unsuccessful. However, in November 1997 after much consultation further DNA analyses were commissioned this time using highly sensitive DNA amplification techniques. The test was conducted on the small remaining piece of fabric from the knickers (part having been used in the 1995 experiment), a piece of material from one of the slips and the areas of staining from the handkerchief. This time the experiment did produce results in that profiles were obtained both from the fabric and from the handkerchief which could be compared with samples taken from James Hanratty’s brother, Michael, and his mother, Mary. These comparisons confirmed that the male contribution to the profiling from the knickers almost certainly came from either a son of Mary or a brother of Michael. It was also shown at a much lower level of probability that it was a son of Mary and a brother of Michael who had been responsible for depositing the mucus stains on the handkerchief.

(my enboldening)

If JH was the rapist and therefore the murderer then surely the distribution of JH's semen, as being consistent with distribution after sexual intercourse would have shown up without need for great magnification. Imagine, as you will, a fair few globules of it. Techniques before LCN (and it was LCN that was used for the match) would have easily picked up JH's DNA. Why was it only found after the application of LCN? LCN is notorious for being distorted by contamination.
It alludes also that none was found on the slip and that the hanky (which I do not dispute in any way shape or form was JH's) had less of JH's DNA than the fragment of knickers.
As I keep banging on about..how did this happen?

Go figure.

Reg

[reg1965]

Hello James
I will assume you are being serious for the sake of argument.
Right then, so how did JH"s DNA then get on the fabric, consistent with sexual intercourse having taken place between himself and VS?
Additionally if semen stains were seen on the sides of the knickers wouldn't they have taken those pieces as well as the crotch for examination,before throwing the rest away, bearing in mind that they would have known that VS had also had sexual intercourse with MG ? Not to have done so would have been throwing the evidence away which proved the blood group of the rapist.

All the best
johnl

Hi johnl
You don't even need a noticeable stain, DNA from semen and other bodily fluids can be elicited from even unnoticed portions of a sample, that is why mixtures of washes are used today.

Reg

[johnl]

DNA evidence

Hello James
I've been away for a while but I thought I'd have one last try before returning to my bottle of rioja.
The crotch of VS's knickers was bagged up and presented to the court as evidence in the trial. What was it evidence of, if not the blood group ?
Perhaps you could tell me.

All the best for now
johnl

[JamesDean]

Hello James
I've been away for a while but I thought I'd have one last try before returning to my bottle of rioja.
The crotch of VS's knickers was bagged up and presented to the court as evidence in the trial. What was it evidence of, if not the blood group ?
Perhaps you could tell me.

All the best for now
johnl

Hello johnl

It appears from the records that Dr Grant examined the green jacket and trousers on 28 December 1961 and Valerie Storie’s slips and knickers the following day. It was on this latter occasion that a portion of the crotch area of the knickers was removed and thereafter, as seems clear, stored separately from the other exhibits including the knickers from which it had been excised.

I can only speculate like you as to how that piece of knicker was presented in court. Perhaps it was simply to demonstrate that there was a semen stain without having to have the knickers passed around in court, thereby minimising embarrassment for Miss Storie. I doubt that it was anything to do with blood group as that had been identified a long time before the piece of crotch had been excised from the knickers.

Regards
James