a6 murder

[Sara]

It also begs the question, why leave the hanky at all if Hanratty was dumping the gun. Surely he would have put it back in his pocket?

Most men in those days had initialled hankerchiefs - given them usually at Xmas! If you wanted to make sure the gun led to Hanratty, and had access to his washing (as the Frances did) what better way to incriminate him

[Limehouse]

Hi Graham (and all),

To answer your point 'if you were trying to incriminate Hanratty by planting the evidence on the bus, why wip the gun clean of prints' my answer would be 'to ensure no other incriminating prints are on the gun' (such as the person who planted it or used it last. That might also explain why no other forensic evidence was found at the murder scene - except VS and MG.

With reference to the lady who called out at the trial, this is an intriguing event - but I wonder why, if she was so convinced of Hanratty's innocence and knew that someone could testify to that end, she did not go to the police and report what she knew? Do you think perhaps she did - and was ignored? Or was she just a crank who wanted a bit of notoriety?

Concerning Hanratty's protestations of innocence to the bitter end. He is convincing in his insistence that he was innocent. He certainly more than half convince me. As I said in a previous post, if guilty, this crime was certainly a massive departure from his normal criminal routine. I think someone else has said that he may have just gone into denial mode, shocked by his own behaviour, with the realisation dawning of the effect the crime and its consequences would have on his family. He does, after all, have a hisotry of refusing to take responsibility for his actions - despite his fundamental honsety about his criminal nature.

I still can't make up my mind to be honest. I have stopped dipping back into Woffendin because his case for Hanratty's innocence is so convincing.

[Victor]

How long do you think it will take a man to get over being hanged for a crime he did not commit on very shaky evidence.

Easy, which answer do you want?

1. A dead man doesn't need to get over anything, he's dead.
or:
2. That question is not relevant to the Hanratty case and should be taken over to the "Pub Talk" section where it can be explored to your heart's content.

KR,
Vic.

[Victor]

Regarding Michael Clark: he was a seaman, but it was almost certainly possible - PROVIDED he was working on a British vessel, to compel him to attend court to give evidence. There would certainly have been a contact address given for him when he attended the parade - police bureaucracy sees to that. It would have been possible to find him at least

Really, you have evidence of this? Why would his details need to be taken, he was an innocent volunteering for an ID parade?

Back to contamination of the DNA evidence, there is chapter and verse (testimony given at oneof the appeals iirc, cited on this or the other thread) that the ORIGINAL forensic examination of Storie's garments was done the day following that of Hanratty's clothing.

WRONG - VS garments were examined the day BEFORE ALPHON's.

Knowing what we do now about the almost inevitable cross-contamination of DNA in the minute amounts used in LCN testing,

WRONG - contamination is an UNPREDICTABLE effect, and even Reg's worst figures list it at 70% likelihood, typical results are much lower than that.

it's impossible to say that Stories panties were not contaminated by an infinitessimal speck of JN's DNA in the lab (from a work surface or from someone's lab coat sleeve even) - and that's all it would take.

Likewise, it's impossible to say that the samples were contaminated.

People had no idea at all in those days how extremely rigorous one had to be, even for ordinary DNA purposes, or they would not have carried all the bits of physical 'evidence' in the same little box/attache case.

Separately packaged, not removed from packaging.

Given the lack of understanding then, cross-contamination might even - I'd say easily - have come from using the same pair of scissors to cut a patch from each garment for test purposes.

Utter rubbish.

The kind of cleaning of the scissors which woudl happen in those days would not be sufficient to avoid some traces of the DNA in the previous garment

At the appeal they specifically commentted that isolation practices in those days were competent enough.

Hanratty's semem-stained trousers in fact, obtained by the police for the purpose - from lodging in the scissors

I'm not aware of anything saying that Hanratty's trousers were cut. They were washed with a solvent.

IN any event, LCN technique is entirely a matter of interpretation

All scientific techniques are entirely a matter of interpretation - including fingerprinting.

I'm afraid anyone who doesn't understand this, esp quite how miniscule the traces used in LCN techniques are, is missing the whole point of why doubt is still inevitable - and always will be

People just didnt; understand in those days

Doubt is inevitable only if you don't fully understand the science and don't fully read the judgment.

KR,
Vic.

[Victor]

Hi there everyone
Hope you all had a good xmas. Happy new year.

Hi Steve, I hope you had a good break too.

LCN was used in the evidence which caused the Hanratty family appeal to be turned down. From what I have read on the other thread this LCN is a very haphazard technique.

It's a very sensitive technique so can detect DNA profiles from as little as 7 cells of your body.

It seems that the amount of DNA that was tested was very small so the results could be wrong because of interpretation errors and contamination.

Why is everyone so caught up with the interpretation? Every technique needs interpretation otherwise there would be no meaningful results.

Contamination was examined and dismissed because of the results found.

It is because of recent cases involving LCN that these issues have come to light.
When LCN DNA boffins talk of billions to one against a profile not being that of a suspect, it seems that this figure comes from a product rule associated with the number of times that a particular peak appears in a profile. If any number of these is wrong then the probability figure is reduced exponentially.

It is a product rule. It's based on the frequency of the STRs present and nothing to do with the number of times a particular peak appears in a profile, because I can guarantee that the answer to that is always 1.

Why did the CCRC refer the Hanratty case back to the court of appeal if the DNA was so certain in pin pointing Hanratty as the killer?

Because it was only by going through an appeal process and giving the defense a chance to comment, and having it rejected that we can be certain he was guilty.

The case work they did took over 2 years and was led by an ex chief constable of Hertfordshire a Mr Baden Skitt. He was shocked by the DNA evidence as the discovered case files showed that Hanratty was innocent and the case had been rigged.

Loads of unfounded rumours have been spread about Hanratty being innocent, or having confessed, for example, to a priest or the hangman. They're all rubbish and can be ignored unless there's any corroboration other than heresay.

KR,
Vic.

[Victor]

The appeal judge took the view that the DNA proved the conviction was safe beyond doubt and didn`t seem to evaluate any other evidence produced.

That's easy to explain - if the DNA proved Hanratty raped VS, then all those eyewitnesses who said he was in Rhyl at the time must have been mistaken, in that they could have been describing someone else. Eyewitness evidence is notoriously unreliable and speculative.

I have to admit that the main problem I have with the case is the fact that a man went to the gallows vigorously protesting his innocence. To leave his family with that belief and burden if it wasn`t true would be a very cruel legacy to inflict on them. Even if he wasn`t close to them there is no evidence to suggest that he hated them enough to do this.

I agree, Hanratty was very cruel to inflict false hope onto his family, they were burdened enough by having a rapist and cold-blooded killer in the family, but to make them suffer unnecessarily is very nasty of him.

It has been raised before that maybe he had deluded himself into believing he was innocent, and due to his mental deficiencies he believe his own lies.

KR,
Vic.

[jimarilyn]

Hi,

I do read the postings on the DNA thread, but not being scientifically minded or trained I don't know exactly how much registers (I have to take great care of both remaining brain cells) or how much I'm able to absorb.
Knowing that unintentional cross contamination is very much a real possibility, I would like to ask the following question (to those much more qualified than myself, to answer) :

With the remarkable advances in Science and Technology over the last 40 years is it possible for deliberate cross contamination to occur ?

regards,
James

[Victor]

With the remarkable advances in Science and Technology over the last 40 years is it possible for deliberate cross contamination to occur ?

Hi James,

It depends upon your definitions. Basically you could probably acheive the desired result, but you'd need samples of their DNA.

Is it possible to introduce some of JH's semen onto the sample?
- Yes if you have a sample of it, and that means you specifically need a viable sample of his semen.

Is it possible to remove the rapists semen and leave behind VS fluids?
- It'd be very, very, very difficult even with fresh samples of VS fluids. You could only theoretically remove all DNA traces and then re-introduce VS, you couldn't do it in one-step.

However, with the blood-type result from 1961, and the "pattern consistent with VS and JH having had sex", and the other visible evidence from the scientists you'd be asking for a very convoluted conspiracy with many participants.

KR,
Vic.

[SteveS]

Hi all
I am pretty sure that all people picked from ID parades have to be prepared to make themselves available for court if required to do so.

A lot of talk has been on Hanratty protesting his innocence till the very end. Why did his family believe him and fight to clear his name? The Hanratty family knew him better than any of us and would not have spent years campaigning for him if they didn't believe him. They could have just accepted the outcome and try to get on with their lives.

Sara maentioned in her posting 3029 that and i quote

...that the ORIGINAL forensic examination of Storie's garments was done the day following that of Hanratty's clothing.

The original testing took place alledgedly, because of lack of dating on records, on 23/8/61 and then Hanratty's garments on the 9/10/61.
The Hanratty family asked for Dr Grant to examine Hanratty's green suit and certain other exhibits. Hanratty's suit was reexamined on the 28/12/61. Valerie Stories knickers were reexamined the next day. It was here that the fragment used for the DNA tests was taken out. Here is the opportunity for DNA of Hanratty to get onto the knickers of Valerie's. If the testing had been done the other way round, that is Hanratty's second, then it would be less obvious for a transfer mechanism.
The fact that the forensic scientists in 1961 were poor on record keeping should give one enough concern that they were not altogether circumspect on other lab procedures.

Could Hanratty have put the gun on the bus. I thought that he sent a telegram to the Frances from Liverpool on the day it was placed there?

From Victors reply to my last post which was number 3028

It's a very sensitive technique so can detect DNA profiles from as little as 7 cells of your body.

In fact any DNA testing can detect just one cell (6.6pg of DNA)
As I see it, LCN is used when 100pg or less of DNA is available, about 15 cells in fact.

Why is everyone so caught up with the interpretation? Every technique needs interpretation otherwise there would be no meaningful results.

Contamination was examined and dismissed because of the results found.

I will qualify this by saying, from what i've read, that no reliable interpretation can be obtained whatever the FSS or the judges at the Appeal say. In the Omagh Bombing case the FSS refused to disclose the actual original amount of DNA used despite numerous calls by the defence.

It is a product rule. It's based on the frequency of the STRs present and nothing to do with the number of times a particular peak appears in a profile, because I can guarantee that the answer to that is always 1.

The most modern DNA testing kits apparently locate 13 loci and from those loci the allele peaks are interpreted. A person could have 1 or 2 alleles at each loci, depending on whether the Mother and Father contributed different types at that loci. In LCN, becuase of the low amount of original DNA, allele peaks could appear (allelic drop-in) or disappear (drop-out) without any reason. It seems that Interpretation is then gathered by adopting the product rule after a number of runs to determine which alleles match a given profile. It does not though, from what I have read, give any sense of the confidence that should be placed in the reliability of the original test and its reproducibility.

Because it was only by going through an appeal process and giving the defense a chance to comment, and having it rejected that we can be certain he was guilty.

Up to 31/12/08 the CCRC had completed 10,754 cases yet only 412 of these had been referred to the Court of Appeal (3.83%). It can hardly be said that it is just a chance for the defence to have their say. Good grounds need to be put forward to get a referral. Of those 382 actually heard at 31/12/08 271 case were quashed (70.94%). It would be interesting to know how many of these 382 cases involved DNA evidence and the ratio of quashing/upholding in those.

info found on the ccrc website

http://www.ccrc.gov.uk/cases/case_44.htm

Loads of unfounded rumours have been spread about Hanratty being innocent, or having confessed, for example, to a priest or the hangman. They're all rubbish and can be ignored unless there's any corroboration other than heresay.

I am only going by what was said by Mr Skitt, who was, obviously, privvy to all of the documents available to the CCRC, including documents, hitherto unseen, that had been held by the Met.


I feel that someone would have to be really naive or totally unconcerned about justice to think, as a few people have psoted so eloquently on here before that the justice system in our country is not riddled with corruption and self interest.



Thnx
Steve

[jimarilyn]

Is it possible to introduce some of JH's semen onto the sample?
- Yes if you have a sample of it, and that means you specifically need a viable sample of his semen.

Is it possible to remove the rapists semen and leave behind VS fluids?
- It'd be very, very, very difficult even with fresh samples of VS fluids. You could only theoretically remove all DNA traces and then re-introduce VS, you couldn't do it in one-step.

Hi Victor,

Excuse the crude terminology, but if the rapist was physically incapable of ejaculating then no semen would appear on Miss Storie's knickers.

regards,
James

[Sara]

Vic the only bit of your reply (which consists of unreasond refutations with no basis in fact) is this:

<< Separately packaged, not removed from packaging. >>

This refers to the bits of material evidence kept for possible use later, NOT those taken in and out of court. The utterly cavalier way in which these were treated has been commented on by those present at Hanratty's trial, and demonstrate the total lack of understanding at the time of the possibilities of cross contamination of DNA samples.

Michael Hanratty described them as all being 'just tipped into a box at the end of each day'. The Getty photos show the small attache case in which they were carried back and forth. They were also freely handled by people in court, inc Hanratty and witnesses. Whatever makes you think other evidence was less handled or more protected? We just don't know how it was dealt with.

Nothing will convince me at this stage that the original lab had any idea what they were doing with regards to storage of these items (or others); nor how rigourous procedure needed to be as regards lab conditions, sterile clothing and intstruments etc. How could they have a that time? - but they were working in what by current standards would be considered a hopelessly unsterile and compromised environment. And ALL of the material evidence was at some point passing through this same lab and being handled by the same people.

To dismiss these caveats in such cavalier terms as 'utter rubbish' says a great deal about your lack of a grasp of these techniques and the rigour of handling required for them to be of any value (not to mention your manners!)

Btw, if you don't think that cross-contamination is 'almost inevitable' in samples used for LCN techniques, then you clearly have not read the relevant scientific papers, links for which have bene constantly posted on the other thread.

[Tony]

Vic the only bit of your reply (which consists of unreasond refutations with no basis in fact) is this:

<< Separately packaged, not removed from packaging. >>

This refers to the bits of material evidence kept for possible use later, NOT those taken in and out of court. The utterly cavalier way in which these were treated has been commented on by those present at Hanratty's trial, and demonstrate the total lack of understanding at the time of the possibilities of cross contamination of DNA samples.

Michael Hanratty described them as all being 'just tipped into a box at the end of each day'. The Getty photos show the small attache case in which they were carried back and forth. They were also freely handled by people in court, inc Hanratty and witnesses. Whatever makes you think other evidence was less handled or more protected? We just don't know how it was dealt with.

Nothing will convince me at this stage that the original lab had any idea what they were doing with regards to storage of these items (or others); nor how rigourous procedure needed to be as regards lab conditions, sterile clothing and intstruments etc. How could they have a that time? - but they were working in what by current standards would be considered a hopelessly unsterile and compromised environment. And ALL of the material evidence was at some point passing through this same lab and being handled by the same people.

To dismiss these caveats in such cavalier terms as 'utter rubbish' says a great deal about your lack of a grasp of these techniques and the rigour of handling required for them to be of any value (not to mention your manners!)

Btw, if you don't think that cross-contamination is 'almost inevitable' in samples used for LCN techniques, then you clearly have not read the relevant scientific papers, links for which have bene constantly posted on the other thread.

Hello Sara,

Just read your post regarding the handling of the exhibits following on from SteveS. By the way SteveS an excellent post, Sir, if I may say so.
I feel I have to say, and at this point I would like to add that I have never criticised any individual contributor on here for their views; as far as I am concerned everyone is entitled to whatever view they have formed; but Vic your recent posts have done you no credit. Your replies about Michael Clark not being available really beggar belief and I have been unable to reply to you which I find is a shame. I know you know better than that.

However, back to the post in hand:
With reference to the handling of the exhibits in the case I would quote this from the Guardian Newspaper dated 19th February 1962:

“The Judge refused the request, but agreed to the jury's having a copy of the list of witnesses. He also told both counsel that he wanted the jury to have every exhibit in the case in their room while they deliberated, and the 136 items, including the revolver which the Crown said was the murder weapon were carried there from the Court.”

The full link to this article for anyone interested is:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/1962/feb/19/ukcrime

I wonder if the jurors were aware at that time of DNA 40 years later?

Tony.

[jimarilyn]

Dr Jonathan Whittaker

Hi All

Re. the controversial Dr Jonathan Whittaker, a few weeks ago I came across the following link.
It concerns the Templeton Woods murder in February 1980.
Reg posted on the other thread (post 56) regarding this back in September.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/tayside_and_central/7109482.stm

Near the end of that article it's very interesting to note Dr Whittaker's own remarks about cross contamination :


Mr Stewart also asked Dr Whitaker if his high-tech lab would allow items of evidence to lie about together in open bags.

Dr Whitaker said: "I would hope to avoid that but there have been cases where it has happened."

There was the possibility of contamination, transfer of DNA from one item to another, he agreed.



regards,
James

[Tony]

Hi All

Re. the controversial Dr Jonathan Whittaker, a few weeks ago I came across the following link.
It concerns the Templeton Woods murder in February 1980.
Reg posted on the other thread (post 56) regarding this back in September.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/tayside_and_central/7109482.stm

Near the end of that article it's very interesting to note Dr Whittaker's own remarks about cross contamination :


Mr Stewart also asked Dr Whitaker if his high-tech lab would allow items of evidence to lie about together in open bags.

Dr Whitaker said: "I would hope to avoid that but there have been cases where it has happened."

There was the possibility of contamination, transfer of DNA from one item to another, he agreed.



regards,
James

As I say I am no scientist and I have no wish to be one.

Jimarilyn is down to his last two brain cells and I may be fairing even worse. Well if you’ve got one it’s better than none, James.

But as regards cross contamination I thought that if one object came into contact with another object that was it game set and match. What was on one was now on the other one; I really and truthfully don’t know.

What I do know is that Judge Gorman instructed the Clerk of the Court to take every single exhibit into the jury room. There was no objection from defence or prosecuting counsel.

Tony.

[Graham]

Tony,

What I do know is that Judge Gorman instructed the Clerk of the Court to take every single exhibit into the jury room. There was no objection from defence or prosecuting counsel.

Obviously no-one in 1962 could pre-empt forensic development in the future,
and it has to be assumed that every last drop of evidence available by the-then techniques had been squeezed out of the exhibits.

As an aside, Gorman also gave a summing-up that was reckoned to be very favourable to the defendent, but the jury still found him guilty....

Cheers,

Graham