Alphon did not do it...

[Victor]

I would imagine his family must know by now but it is hard to admit they were wrong after all those years of campaigning, it must be very hard for them its not as if they can be to blame but they must feel the stigma.

The years of campaigning by the family were primarily because JH was so insistent he was innocent, they were fooled as were a lot of other people.

It's really difficult to admit to having been duped so successfully, for so long.

KR,
Vic

[RonIpstone]

http://www.hmcourts-service.gov.uk/j...6/HANRATTY.htm

article 128.

Counsel acting for the Hanratty family agreed with counsel acting for the Crown that Alphon "could not have been" the A6 murderer: this means that the Hanratty family must now accept this as being true.

The phrase highlighted above is unequivocal: it wasn't Alphon as even Hanratty's surviving family have accepted through their own counsel.

So where does this leave the argument that Hanratty was innocent? Is it really credible to conjecture that another individual was responsible, someone who totally escaped Police notice at the time and since? Or is the only rational thing to do to acknowledge that this exoneration of Alphon, combined with all the other factors and evidence which suggest Hanratty's guilt, leave us with one inescapable conclusion...

Hanratty was guilty.

Those acting for the Hanratty family in the 2002 appeal must have accepted that Alphon did not do it on the basis that his DNA was not discovered on the knickers fragment, but neither was anyone else's (save Gregsten's and Storie's), so by implication, not only did Alphon not do it, neither did anyone else other than Hanratty.

The 2002 appeal turned therefore on the question as to whether the 1962 trial was fundamentally flawed to the extent Hanratty should be acquitted even though he was 'guilty'.

[Derrick]

Alphon cannot be excluded as being culpable of the A6 Murder for the fundamental reason that the LCN DNA evidence in Hanratty was a mixed profile.

LCN mixed profiles cannot exclude anyone.

In fact only SGM+ single profile tests can say for certain that someone is not a suspect, all mixtures are prone to analyst subjectivity.

This thread, by way of the precedents set by Caddy and Reed, is now a complete non runner.

Derrick

[caz]

Excuse my ignorance here, but what about a mixed profile, as in this case, where there were no 'unknowns', or unexpected elements in need of explanation or interpretation?

How can the findings have fallen foul of analyst subjectivity, given that they were entirely consistent with the verdict that Hanratty had raped Gregsten's lover, and entirely inconsistent with any other scenario, involving Alphon or any other individual?

Love,

Caz
X

[Victor]

Alphon cannot be excluded as being culpable of the A6 Murder for the fundamental reason that the LCN DNA evidence in Hanratty was a mixed profile.

LCN mixed profiles cannot exclude anyone.

Hi Derrick,

The hanky profile was not a mixed profile.

Argument destroyed. Alphon did not touch the hanky or gun.

KR,
Vic.

[Natalie Severn]

Hi Derrick,

The hanky profile was not a mixed profile.

Argument destroyed. Alphon did not touch the hanky or gun.

KR,
Vic.

---yawn--- just part of the France hanky panky!

[Natalie Severn]

The years of campaigning by the family were primarily because JH was so insistent he was innocent, they were fooled as were a lot of other people.

It's really difficult to admit to having been duped so successfully, for so long.

KR,
Vic

You must know a heck of a lot about that then!

[Victor]

You must know a heck of a lot about that then!

At least as much as you.

KR,
Vic.

[Natalie Severn]

Excuse my ignorance here, but what about a mixed profile, as in this case, where there were no 'unknowns', or unexpected elements in need of explanation or interpretation?

How can the findings have fallen foul of analyst subjectivity, given that they were entirely consistent with the verdict that Hanratty had raped Gregsten's lover, and entirely inconsistent with any other scenario, involving Alphon or any other individual?

Love,

Caz
X

Caz,
A lot of fiddling and tampering with evidence has also been shown to have gone on by" modern technology"---for more see Michael Sherrard QC, in his autobiography,"Wigs and Wherefores "
---and DNA can disappear-

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080507124555AAFg8aZ

and "re-appear"---as a contaminant.
Best
Norma

[Victor]

A lot of fiddling and tampering with evidence has also been shown to have gone on by" modern technology"

Hi Norma,

The ESDA was inconclusive, but specifically did not support the chnages Sherrard wanted.

---and DNA can disappear-

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080507124555AAFg8aZ

and "re-appear"---as a contaminant.

but Valerie's DNA didn't disappear, nor did Gregsten's.

KR,
Vic.

[Victor]

---and DNA can disappear-
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/in...7124555AAFg8aZ

Hmmm... from that link...
"However, it's possible to extract DNA from ancient human remains. They usually pull it out of a bone sample, as this is all that is left. There has even been an extraction from a neanderthal!"

Interesting! Absolutely consistent with the 4,000 year old mummy scenario.

KR,
Vic.

[Natalie Severn]

Those acting for the Hanratty family in the 2002 appeal must have accepted that Alphon did not do it on the basis that his DNA was not discovered on the knickers fragment, but neither was anyone else's (save Gregsten's and Storie's), so by implication, not only did Alphon not do it, neither did anyone else other than Hanratty.

The 2002 appeal turned therefore on the question as to whether the 1962 trial was fundamentally flawed to the extent Hanratty should be acquitted even though he was 'guilty'.

I would have thought it is now fully understood that such acceptance was in the context of the time of the appeal 2002. A lot more has since been discovered about the reliability of testing such tiny quantities from fragments of old cloth whose history is suspect. LCN DNA testing can not rule out or exclude anyone -suspect or otherwise.

[Natalie Severn]

Hmmm... from that link...
"However, it's possible to extract DNA from ancient human remains. They usually pull it out of a bone sample, as this is all that is left. There has even been an extraction from a neanderthal!"

Interesting! Absolutely consistent with the 4,000 year old mummy scenario.

KR,
Vic.

Indeed it is Victor--I was aware---but read on......about when DNA does disappear ----from sources other than old bones for example.

[Victor]

Indeed it is Victor--I was aware---but read on......about when DNA does disappear ----from sources other than old bones for example.

Hi Norma,

But it didn't did it! VS and MG profile's were still detected, so why should the rapist's selectively disappear? Why would their's persist but another not?

KR,
Vic.

[Victor]

LCN DNA testing can not rule out or exclude anyone -suspect or otherwise.

Absoltuly yes it can!

That's where the confidence of a profile comes in. I don't know the confidence in that result, and neither do you. If for example 20 of the 26 peaks mismatched Alphon then that is conclusive for me!

KR,
Vic.