a6 murder

[jimarilyn]

No I didn't alter the post, I highlighted a phrase to specifically comment on it just like virtually every author does in every book when quoting a passage and commenting on one part of it.
ps* Why not?* which part haven't I countered?* What bit do I need to explain further?

When you quoted me you emboldened the text "disregarding all the very valid points" which I didn't highlight, thus making it appear that this was how my original post looked. I haven't seen anyone do this before on these boards. My post was a very short one anyway so there was no need for you to change the appearance of it.
Re. your boastful and presumptuous claim that you have shot JamesDean's valid points to pieces, you most certainly have not. All you have done is give your own interpretation of the same report that JamesDean has read. May I take it also that like Johnl you are a scientifically trained DNA specialist whose word is gospel ?
In post 1984 you say you believe Hanratty should not have been convicted on the evidence at his trial, yet just a few of lines later you say the immensely strong case against Hanratty gets even stronger.* ??????????*

[caz]

When you quoted me you emboldened the text "disregarding all the very valid points" which I didn't highlight, thus making it appear that this was how my original post looked. I haven't seen anyone do this before on these boards. My post was a very short one anyway so there was no need for you to change the appearance of it.

Hi jimarilyn,

I highlight stuff from other people's posts all the time and have never been ticked off about it. I thought it was a pretty standard way of adding emphasis to the part you want to bring the poster's attention to, and it makes it easier for them to see what you are getting at. I do it to help them see what I'm getting at, not to distort anything.

Love,

Caz
X

[Victor]

When you quoted me you emboldened the text "disregarding all the very valid points" which I didn't highlight, thus making it appear that this was how my original post looked. I haven't seen anyone do this before on these boards. My post was a very short one anyway so there was no need for you to change the appearance of it.

See almost any post by Caz. There's some in the past few days in this thread. I haven't got the time or inclination to post exact post numbers. And as I said I highlighted those words because they were the ones I was commenting directly on.

Re. your boastful and presumptuous claim that you have shot JamesDean's valid points to pieces, you most certainly have not. All you have done is give your own interpretation of the same report that JamesDean has read.

Yes, highlighting the sentences he seems to have glossed over or ignored. I much prefer to use quotes when countering arguments because in my view it reduces the possibility of misinterpretation.

May I take it also that like Johnl you are a scientifically trained DNA specialist whose word is gospel ?

I'm a graduate chemist. Parts of my course were on biochemistry and I studied Enzymatic reactions, and organic polymerisation. I'm not specifically a "trained DNA specialist" but that restrictive description would limit the number of people qualified to comment.

In post 1984 you say you believe Hanratty should not have been convicted on the evidence at his trial, yet just a few of lines later you say the immensely strong case against Hanratty gets even stronger.* ??????????*

Yes, I believe the evidence given at the original trial was insufficient to convict "beyond reasonable doubt"

The DNA evidence then makes the case against Hanratty immensely strong.

Further evaluation of that evidence and close examination of the details have only strengthened that case in my view. In particular JamesDean's suggestions have caused me to interrogate the information more and have highlighted to me how unshakeable the DNA data is.

[Victor]

Hi jimarilyn,

I highlight stuff from other people's posts all the time and have never been ticked off about it. I thought it was a pretty standard way of adding emphasis to the part you want to bring the poster's attention to, and it makes it easier for them to see what you are getting at. I do it to help them see what I'm getting at, not to distort anything.

Love,

Caz
X

Oh look our posts crossed, confirming what I just said. Almost all Ripper authors have used that technique too in their books. I will admit that some use italics instead of bold though.

Rumbelow does.
Stewart P Evans does.
Keith Skinner does.

[caz]

Hi Caz
Read paragraph 119 of the appeal ruling.
Reg

Hi Reg,

Thanks, but there’s no relevance in that paragraph to my question about the evidential link that led to the agreement that Alphon could not have been the murderer.

The evidential link is that they didn't find any of Alphon's DNA. But that is only valid for the fragment ... and if the LCN analysis was accurate. The logic they used is simply "Hanratty did it so it couldn't be Alphon".

Hi James,

That’s what I suspected someone would say.

Still makes no sense to me. Here’s the wording in question again:

By way of postscript we should record that it has been agreed by Mr Sweeney and Mr Mansfield that on the evidence now available Peter Alphon could not have been the murderer. It is understood that this agreement arose out of the DNA evidence. [128]

If nothing specific ruled out Alphon, other than the DNA evidence implicating Hanratty, it just seems like stating the bleedin’ obvious to add: “Oh and by the way, our conclusion that Hanratty dunnit with the revolver in the car means that we don’t believe anyone else, including Colonel Mustard or that Alphon fellow, could have done it”. You don’t say! That’s why I wondered if the implication was that there was some other evidence that would have cleared Alphon independently of the case against Hanratty. I dislike clumsy, redundant or ambiguous wording in anything official like this, hence my query.

There is no evidence that any particular part of the knickers was tested for determining the blood group. Don't forget they were not looking for DNA, they were looking for the blood group of the rapist. I expect they chose the heaviest area of staining which sounds more likely to be the area that extends upwards for 5" from the crotch. They can't possibly have tested all the staining on the knickers as that would effectively destroy the evidence and once they had the blood group information they had no reason for doing more tests. Of course I don't know which area was tested, nobody does, but there is no suggestion it was the crotch area.

Thank you, but I don’t need to be reminded that they were not looking for DNA in 1961! It’s possible that they did choose to test an area of staining that didn’t include the crotch in order to determine the rapist’s blood group. But we know they found seminal fluid on the crotch area too, so if none of this came from the rapist, as you maintain, then it must have come from MG, and presumably spread upwards in detectable amounts to join the rapist’s semen after the traumatised victim had struggled back into her knickers.

Again, just possible I suppose, but I still think Dr Grant would have been aware, when examining the knickers himself (any idea what form this examination took by the way?), if the previous testing had avoided the crotch completely. He would also have been aware that two types of seminal fluid had been detected on the garment, one innocently deposited there and one from the guilty party, and how far the staining extended beyond the crotch area. So he’d have had to be a complete buffoon not to ensure that the piece he was cutting from the crotch for posterity had some of the guilty party’s seminal fluid on it, and not just MG’s!

And that’s before you even get to your second innocent deposit - this time from JH - which just happened to find its way onto Grant’s specimen in a pattern wholly consistent with him having had sex with the victim.

It's not the specifics of a particular case that is important.

And that’s where we fundamentally disagree, I’m afraid. You’d never get a successful prosecution if you had to take every doubt or mistake that had applied in previous cases and apply it willy-nilly to the case in hand, regardless of the individual circumstances and evidence.

I have read the details of the sad case you are asking us to compare with the A6 murder. There appears to be no doubt who was responsible for the boy’s death. Whether there was a sexual motive or a genuine loss of temper with no intention to kill, the coward didn’t turn himself in until after the funeral and was convicted of manslaughter. I hope to Christ he has learned to control himself, one way or another, assuming he will soon be released back into society, if he hasn’t been already.

The DPP initially accepted the evidence that it was the killer’s semen on his victim’s body and decided this was sinister enough for a murder charge. But the sinister aspect would have been thrown into doubt when it emerged that the killer had laid his victim’s body on a bathroom mat that also had semen on it. The semen could, in theory, have got there innocently from another occasion and been transferred to the body that way. A good defence lawyer could have argued for reasonable doubt on that basis.

But it wasn’t as simple as that because the DNA from the mat sample failed to provide an exact match with the DNA from the semen on the body. In short, there was no way of reliably interpreting such results, let alone proving how the semen ended up on the victim’s body. The result was unsatisfactory, but not necessarily ‘false’ or ‘spurious’. You certainly may not infer that the semen on the victim’s body came from a third party. (Goodness alone knows you've already got your work cut out to establish third party semen in the Hanratty case. ) The most you can say is that it may not have had any direct connection with the killing.

Have a great weekend A6 murder buffs everywhere. Sleep well and don't have nightmares.

Love,

Caz
X

[jimarilyn]

Yes, I believe the evidence given at the original trial was insufficient to convict "beyond reasonable doubt"The DNA evidence then makes the case against Hanratty immensely strong.*

So if it's the DNA evidence of 2002 (and not the 1962 trial evidence) that make the case against Hanratty immensely strong, what is it indeed that makes it even stronger ?

PS. My original post (1981) was only 2 and a half lines in length so I'm sure other posters on this thread would instantly have known what you were referring to. It wasn't as if it was 7 or 8 paragraphs in length and hard to locate.

[jimarilyn]

I'm convinced the Hanratty test proved that the right man was hung, and so were the Appeal Court Judges, and so was VS and she has been for over 40 years.

Miss Storie was convinced on 24th of September 1961 that Michael Clark was her rapist. It's a good job he could account for his movements on the murder night otherwise he too could have been on the end of a hangman's noose.

[Victor]

So if it's the DNA evidence of 2002 (and not the 1962 trial evidence) that make the case against Hanratty immensely strong, what is it indeed that makes it even stronger ?

PS. My original post (1981) was only 2 and a half lines in length so I'm sure other posters on this thread would instantly have known what you were referring to. It wasn't as if it was 7 or 8 paragraphs in length and hard to locate.

Interrogation of that evidence.

In particular all the questions raised by JamesDean and others on this thread. It made me look at it harder, study it further and look at the LCN technique itself.

[Victor]

Miss Storie was convinced on 24th of September 1961 that Michael Clark was her rapist. It's a good job he could account for his movements on the murder night otherwise he too could have been on the end of a hangman's noose.

Is that the one from the non-speaking line up?

[jimarilyn]

Is that the one from the non-speaking line up?

No one was asked to say "be quiet I'm thinking" on that line-up. Had they been, I'm sure Peter Alphon's voice would have given him away, unless he deliberately disguised his voice.

On Hanratty's line-up 3 weeks later they were all asked to say "be quiet I'm thinking". I'm sure if Hanratty had have been the guilty party he would have gone to great lengths to disguise the tone of his voice.

[Steve]

Is that the one from the non-speaking line up?

Yes, the first identity parade.

[jimarilyn]

Interrogation of that evidence.

In particular all the questions raised by JamesDean and others on this thread. It made me look at it harder, study it further and look at the LCN technique itself.

I must be very naive, I thought only people could be interrogated.

So you're more qualified than the eminent geneticist Dr. John Parrington who deals with DNA on a daily basis and who warns Joe Public to guard against any findings because of the inherent flaws associated with DNA testing/profiling. Perhaps you should apply for his job.

[Steve]

No one was asked to say "be quiet I'm thinking" on that line-up. Had they been, I'm sure Peter Alphon's voice would have given him away, unless he deliberately disguised his voice.

On Hanratty's line-up 3 weeks later they were all asked to say "be quiet I'm thinking". I'm sure if Hanratty had have been the guilty party he would have gone to great lengths to disguise the tone of his voice.

The police know how their suspects speak and would know if anyone tried to disguise their voice. Trying to disguise your voice is virtually an admission of guilt!

[Victor]

I must be very naive, I thought only people could be interrogated.

So you're more qualified than the eminent geneticist Dr. John Parrington who deals with DNA on a daily basis and who warns Joe Public to guard against any findings because of the inherent flaws associated with DNA testing/profiling. Perhaps you should apply for his job.

Nope it's not only people, evidence can be interrogated.
From http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/interrogate
1 : to question formally and systematically
2 : to give or send out a signal to (as a transponder) for triggering an appropriate response

That'd be the first definition then.

I never claimed to be more qualified than anyone, I just gave you my qualifications.

I don't want a new job thank you, I'm happy with the one I've got.

And from wikipedia "Low Copy Number":-

The technique came under attack from the Judge during the trail of Sean Hoey - who was eventually cleared of involvement in the Omagh Bombing. One of the criticisms the judge leveled at LCN was that although the FSS had internally validated and published scientific papers on the technique, there was an alleged lack of external validation by the wider scientific community. Following the Judge's ruling, the use of the technique was suspended in the UK, pending a review by the Crown Prosecution Service. This review was completed and the suspension lifted on the 14 January 2008. In its press release the CPS stated:-

"From this, the CPS has not seen anything to suggest that any current problems exist with LCN. Accordingly we conclude that LCN DNA analysis provided by the FSS should remain available as potentially admissible evidence. Of course, the strength and weight such evidence is given in any individual case remains a matter to be considered, presented, and tested in the light of all the other evidence." [my bold!]

[Victor]

Hello Victor

You have misinterpreted some of the things that I have said and tried to twist them into meaning something different. I don't propose to go any further with this argument as I have neither the time or the inclination and I think that turning the thread into a personal battle field does not achieve anything. You will always quote from the holy text that is the judgment, as does johnl, and I merely seek to examine the case for alternative explanations for the events of that night. The judgment is well presented but in my opinion flawed. You have your opinion about the DNA 'evidence' and I have mine so let's just leave it at that.

Regards
James

Hi James,

If I've misinterpretted you then I'm sorry. What did I misintrepret and how?

There's nothing personal in my comments, and it isn't a battlefield, it is a discussion on the available evidence.

I'm happy to consider any alternative explanations which fit the known facts, and where they don't fit the facts that needs to be highlighted.

If the judgement is flawed then that begs the question - What are the flaws?

If you don't want to proceed with this discussion then of course that is your right, but if anyone else wants to ask anything then I reserve the right to respond to them.

I quote from the judgement because then I can't be accused of misinterpretting the available data.