Alphon did not do it...

[Natalie Severn]

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.

Hi Vic,
Way back on 23rd August 1961 and December 1961 Seminal fluid was extracted from the knickers or the crotch piece of same that gave a blood group reading of Group "O" alongside Gregsten"s in lesser quantity from Blood group AB.
What we dont know is when upon finding these two lots of seminal fluid the pathologist then targeted for extraction the seminal fluid of the rapist---ie blood group "O" --- as seems likely.In order to do this the cloth must have yielded sufficient seminal fluid to make up a wash for analysis .The distribution of seminal fluid was from the crotch area to 5 inches up the back, yet only the crotch area was kept for further storage---and only half of that it turns out was kept in the envelope.So I wonder actually where the rapists DNA was mostly deposited---on the crotch or the area upwards of 5 inches at the back?
Gregsten"s seminal fluid was not very important finally for further testing,neither was Valerie"s vaginal fluid.But the rapists was and I suspect rather more of the rapists fluid was extracted for testing than the that of the others , and this would apply to the trial tests of 1995 for DNA ,on the 40 year old fragment,which yielded nothing much of use.But still this 40 year old cloth was subjected to further washes and further testing that targeted the extraction of the DNA that did not belong to either Valerie or Gregsten.
By 1961, the original rapist" s DNA could actually have begun to disappear through "extraction" from the fragment of cloth due to it being the targeted exhibit needed for evidence even in 1961 and so according to the above link I gave last night it "could have" disappeared",due an insufficient quantity of it being left on the cloth to make it viable for testing in 2002, while the other,less disturbed fluids from VS and MG and were still extant.
Meanwhile, contaminants from what was extracted from Hanratty"s trousers and kept in a wash in the broken vial found amongst the exhibits where the fragment of cloth was found ,could have caused his DNA to be found there.

There were a lot of shady goings on in 1961 and a lot of shady characters wheeled on to give testimony on the prosecutions behalf.
Best Wishes Vic,
Norma

[Victor]

Way back on 23rd August 1961 and December 1961 Seminal fluid was extracted from the knickers or the crotch piece of same that gave a blood group reading of Group "O" alongside Gregsten"s in lesser quantity from Blood group AB.
What we dont know is when upon finding these two lots of seminal fluid the pathologist then targeted for extraction the seminal fluid of the rapist---ie blood group "O" --- as seems likely.In order to do this the cloth must have yielded sufficient seminal fluid to make up a wash for analysis .

Hi Norma,

It's impossible to identify the source of a semen stain visually, what must have happened is that a wash was made of an area of the material but I don't know exactly how this was done. I don't think it is reasonable to assume that the scientists could target the rapist's semen to wash and yet leave sufficient quantities of MG's semen and VS vaginal fluid to be detected later.

But still this 40 year old cloth was subjected to further washes and further testing that targeted the extraction of the DNA that did not belong to either Valerie or Gregsten.

I do not think the entire fragment was washed for the first round of SGM testing, Woffinden implies this in the final paragraphs of his book. He suggests a portion of the fragment was cut off and dropped into a solvent for all the DNA on it to be washed out, and a similar process on the rest of the fragment for the LCN tests.

By 1961, the original rapist" s DNA could actually have begun to disappear through "extraction" from the fragment of cloth due to it being the targeted exhibit needed for evidence even in 1961 and so according to the above link I gave last night it "could have" disappeared",due an insufficient quantity of it being left on the cloth to make it viable for testing in 2002, while the other,less disturbed fluids from VS and MG and were still extant.

One of the links you gave (I think it's from Budowle or Jamieson) explicitly say that your suggestion is unnaceptable, and that an external trigger such as action of light or bacteria is needed to decompose DNA.

Meanwhile, contaminants from what was extracted from Hanratty"s trousers and kept in a wash in the broken vial found amongst the exhibits where the fragment of cloth was found ,could have caused his DNA to be found there.

The broken vial could have contained a wash from Alphon's samples as there were some of his hairs in that file, however, you'd need both of these acting together to replace the rapist's semen with Hanratty's whilst leaving Gregsten's intact. I don't think that's remotely likely.

There were a lot of shady goings on in 1961 and a lot of shady characters wheeled on to give testimony on the prosecutions behalf.

And a vicious rapist and murderer to catch too.

KR,
Vic.

[Derrick]

Hi Derrick,

The hanky profile was not a mixed profile.

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

KR,
Vic.

Victor

Who said Alphon touched anything at all? I certainly didn't.
It is quite plausible that someone, wearing gloves (perhaps like the black nylon ones seen on top of the laundry in Alphons case by Juliana Galves just before noon on the 23rd August 1961) planted the hanky wrapped gun on the bus and the cartridge cases in room 24.

Derrick

[Natalie Severn]

Hi Derrick---that is my take on it exactly I must admit.Moreover Alphon was looking very disturbed indeed according to Juliana Galves---just as those people were in the Alexandra Hotel.
Now sane,normal people dont go round hotels looking like the 'Wild Man of Borneo " and frightening the life out of everyone who sees them.Sounds like Alphon was more than ready for the loony bin at that juncture.

[Limehouse]

Victor

Who said Alphon touched anything at all? I certainly didn't.
It is quite plausible that someone, wearing gloves (perhaps like the black nylon ones seen on top of the laundry in Alphons case by Juliana Galves just before noon on the 23rd August 1961) planted the hanky wrapped gun on the bus and the cartridge cases in room 24.

Derrick

Hi Derrick

I full believe that - whoever committed the murder - those cartridge cases were not left in room 24 by the killer and were probably 'held back' as a trump card.

By the way - I am very impressed by your posts. Keep up the good work.

Julie

[caz]

Touching cloth

Victor

Who said Alphon touched anything at all? I certainly didn't.
It is quite plausible that someone, wearing gloves (perhaps like the black nylon ones seen on top of the laundry in Alphons case by Juliana Galves just before noon on the 23rd August 1961) planted the hanky wrapped gun on the bus and the cartridge cases in room 24.

Derrick

Well if Alphon is being accused of rape by anyone on this thread, his semen must have touched that piece of cloth!

It beggars belief that it could all have accidentally gone AWOL (or been the only one of four people's DNA on that cloth to degrade - and degrade completely) and accidentally been replaced by Hanratty's.

If this didn't beggar belief, we can be sure that Hanratty's defenders would have had something to say about it.

Not one of them could come up with a remotely sensible alternative explanation.

I'm still waiting for someone - anyone - on these boards to offer one.

The explanations I have seen so far hold no water. But pure faith can make people imagine it by the bucketful.

Love,

Caz
X

[Victor]

It is quite plausible that someone, wearing gloves (perhaps like the black nylon ones seen on top of the laundry in Alphons case by Juliana Galves just before noon on the 23rd August 1961) planted the hanky wrapped gun on the bus and the cartridge cases in room 24.

Hi Derrick,

If you accept the Galves statement, it must mean you reject Nudds 2nd statement where he says he visits Alphon in Room 6, therefore there's no evidence to put Alphon anywhere near Room 24 where the cartridge cases were found.

In any case you are now in the territory of conspiracy theory which means that Alphon was already conspiring to frame Hanratty on 23rd August, and presumably France was involved to provide the link to the hanky from the dirty laundry.

And then there's the blood group O semen that coincidentally matched both Alphon and Hanratty, before going into the DNA arena.

KR,
Vic

[Natalie Severn]

Caz,
I have given a link explaining how and when DNA can "disappear" and discussed the way in which the DNA from the rapist on the knickers could have been of extremely limited content by the time the pathologists had finished targeting it for extraction.This happened twice in 1961---August 23rd and December 28th 1961 ---they found body fluid from VS,MG and the rapist ---blood group "O" [Alphon"s and Hanratty"s].Next the fragment of old cloth was not then stored according to modern requirements but instead was found in a locker with a broken vial and Hanratty"s trousers---which we know had semen on the inside fly---because some of that was removed for testing too in 1961.So after 31 years in substandard conditions of storage-by modern standards- and abundant opportunities of contamination,the fragment is tested yet again , this time to discover the rapists DNA in 1995 and surprise ,surprise, it yielded nothing---but the scant DNA left on the cloth was left another 6 years to further "degrade" and what little was left was put to be tested by Low Copy number DNA testing---notorious for including contaminated DNA in its results---and blow me down Hanratty"s "DNA" pops up,bold as brass [and probably from his stored trousers or the broken vial].
Caz, these methods of testing are now outlawed in the appeal courts of the States because of new findings viz a viz their "reliability".
But in my opinion,it would surely have been the rapists DNA that was targeted for testing and extraction from the cloth ? It seems quite obvious to me that that was what they were looking for?

There are a number of studies actually concerning mixed samples of old DNA which explain why they are no longer lawful to use as evidence in appeal courts in the USA .Their tendency to give muddled test results-due to contamination, being the most prevalent reason for no longer being used there [as in most European countries]

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/06/090608182541.htm

Best Wishes,
Norma

[Natalie Severn]

Hi Derrick,

If you accept the Galves statement, it must mean you reject Nudds 2nd statement where he says he visits Alphon in Room 6, therefore there's no evidence to put Alphon anywhere near Room 24 where the cartridge cases were found.

In any case you are now in the territory of conspiracy theory which means that Alphon was already conspiring to frame Hanratty on 23rd August, and presumably France was involved to provide the link to the hanky from the dirty laundry.

And then there's the blood group O semen that coincidentally matched both Alphon and Hanratty, before going into the DNA arena.

KR,
Vic

Vic,
This is all discussed in full regarding Alphon"s written confession to Jean Justice,and still extant, see Murder versus Murder, pages 116 and 117 ,point number 2 headed "Frame up in the Vienna".
Best
Norma

[Victor]

I have given a link explaining how and when DNA can "disappear" and discussed the way in which the DNA from the rapist on the knickers could have been of extremely limited content by the time the pathologists had finished targeting it for extraction.This happened twice in 1961---August 23rd and December 28th 1961 ---they found body fluid from VS,MG and the rapist ---blood group "O" [Alphon"s and Hanratty"s].

Hi Norma,

As Derrick points out on the main thread, cell source cannot be determined, so how are you accounting for the scientists to be able to distinguish between MG's and the rapist's semen for targetting?

Next the fragment of old cloth was not then stored according to modern requirements but instead was found in a locker with a broken vial and Hanratty"s trousers---which we know had semen on the inside fly---because some of that was removed for testing too in 1961.So after 31 years in substandard conditions of storage-by modern standards- and abundant opportunities of contamination,the fragment is tested yet again , this time to discover the rapists DNA in 1995 and surprise ,surprise, it yielded nothing---but the scant DNA left on the cloth was left another 6 years to further "degrade" and what little was left was put to be tested by Low Copy number DNA testing---notorious for including contaminated DNA in its results---and blow me down Hanratty"s "DNA" pops up,bold as brass [and probably from his stored trousers or the broken vial].

From para 119 of the judgment:-

The file containing the fragment from the knickers was discovered in 1991 by Jennifer Wiles. It was still packaged as described except that the cellophane package was no longer intact. Also found in the file were some broken slides and slide holders possibly having contained hairs and fibres collected at the scene of the murder. There were also two polythene bags each containing hairs thought now to have come from Alphon. There was another polythene bag containing a number of bullets and significantly, so Mr Mansfield submits, a polythene bag containing a small rubber bung and fragments of glass including a curved piece suggesting that the polythene bag had at one time contained a glass vial or tube.

There's no mention of Hanratty's trousers being stored, and all the items mentioned are in seperate polythene bags.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0608182541.htm

From http://www.theforensicinstitute.com/...tement%202.pdf
"DNA is an inherently stable molecule and requires something to destroy or degrade it; examples are action by light, cellular enzymes, or bacteria." and "DNA has been extracted from mummies (albeit with mixed success), and profiles are routinely obtained in Medical Genetics from blood spots on card stored at room temperature that are at least 40 years old"

The link you gave refers to action by an enzyme, now where is this enzyme going to come from?

KR,
Vic.

[Victor]

Sorry the last link doesn't work...It's actually http://www.theforensicinstitute.com/...tement%202.pdf

But I did find this...http://www.fbi.gov/hq/lab/html/codis_swgdam.htm

Not had chance to read it all yet.

KR,
Vic.

[Natalie Severn]

Thanks Victor, I will study the links you gave me tonight,- meanwhile I am posting number 111 and 115 from the same 2002 judgement you used.It shows quite clearly how garments,including the trousers stained on the inside with Hanratty"s semen and the knickers and the hanky---at that point were all brought out at the Committal when DNA could have migrated. As well as that it has been agreed that the contents of the broken vial could have contained a wash from Hanratty"s trousers and could have caused contamination during storage.

Yes,you are quite right in stating the trousers themselves were not stored, my mistake.


115.[ of Judgement]:
All the exhibits, including those mentioned, were produced at the committal proceedings which took place between 22 November 1961 and 5 December 1961. If the usual procedures of the time were followed it would seem doubtful that any one of the exhibits, barring possibly the gun and certain of the cartridges, would ever have been removed from its packaging or container. Even so, as Mr Mansfield points out and the respondent concedes, the possibility that there was contact between the various exhibits cannot be excluded altogether.

the following refers to the first line of the above extract beginning,"All the exhibits..."

111.[ of the judgement]
The knickers arrived at the Metropolitan Police Laboratory (MPL) on 23 August 1961 where they were examined by Dr Nickolls, the director and his assistant, Henry Howard. 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. Although the laboratory records are not dated, the notes are numbered sequentially and we are confident that the knickers were examined almost immediately and in any event no later than 23 September 1961 when the notes show that certain samples taken from Peter Alphon were examined at the laboratory. The handkerchief came to the laboratory on 25 August, was screened for blood and semen and, none being found, seems to have been put to one side. Best Norma

[Natalie Severn]

Vic, Sorry,these too should also have been included because these were all the items produced at the committal:

112
On 7 October 1961 a suitcase containing James Hanratty’s clothing was seized from the home of his girlfriend, Louise Anderson. It was received at the laboratory on 9 October. Amongst other items it contained a pair of dark pinstriped trousers (part of the Hepworth suit) and a green jacket and trousers. Some hairs and fibres were removed from the outside of the dark trousers as was a sample from a seminal stain on the inside of the fly. A suggestion, which has not been contradicted, is that the seminal stain may have been washed out and retained in the form of a liquid. Quite clearly the knickers (exhibit 26 at trial) and later the fragment cut from the crotch area and the handkerchief (exhibit 35) are of first importance. So too, as possible contaminators, are James Hanratty’s intimate samples and items of clothing which may have borne traces of his DNA


Quite clearly the knickers (exhibit 26 at trial) and later the fragment cut from the crotch area and the handkerchief (exhibit 35) are of first importance. So too, as possible contaminators, are James Hanratty’s intimate samples and items of clothing which may have borne traces of his DNA

[Victor]

Thanks Victor, I will study the links you gave me tonight,- meanwhile I am posting number 111 and 115 from the same 2002 judgement you used.It shows quite clearly how garments,including the trousers stained on the inside with Hanratty"s semen and the knickers and the hanky---at that point were all brought out at the Committal when DNA could have migrated. As well as that it has been agreed that the contents of the broken vial could have contained a wash from Hanratty"s trousers and could have caused contamination during storage.

115.[ of Judgement]:
All the exhibits, including those mentioned, were produced at the committal proceedings which took place between 22 November 1961 and 5 December 1961. If the usual procedures of the time were followed it would seem doubtful that any one of the exhibits, barring possibly the gun and certain of the cartridges, would ever have been removed from its packaging or container. Even so, as Mr Mansfield points out and the respondent concedes, the possibility that there was contact between the various exhibits cannot be excluded altogether.

Hi Norma,

Yes there are a number of possibilities and the judgment refers to the "possibility of contamination" not being ruled out, but then there's the oft repeated problem of the selective degredation of the rapist's DNA (if it wasn't Hanratty) and no known process will do that and leave the other two DNA profiles on the mixed sample intact, not even your suggestion of a selective scraping or targetting of the rapist's semen for which I can't envision how that would be done.

KR,
Vic.

[Victor]

Quite clearly the knickers (exhibit 26 at trial) and later the fragment cut from the crotch area and the handkerchief (exhibit 35) are of first importance. So too, as possible contaminators, are James Hanratty’s intimate samples and items of clothing which may have borne traces of his DNA

Hi Norma,

Of course we need to include any other possible contaminators too, such as Alphon's samples (see previous reference to Alphon's hairs discovered with the knicker fragment) for which there was no trace revealed in the results, or the hairs recovered from the scene.

KR,
Vic.