A6 Rebooted

[Limehouse]

From section 113 of the 2002 Judgement:



I fail to understand how the sentence I highlighted above came about if, as Derrick claims, there was nothing of the kind found at the time. It would be a very serious detail to invent, yet an oddly specific one to include by mistake. And I do wonder why Derrick seems to be the only Hanratty defender to have exposed and criticised such a potentially significant error, considering that the 2002 attribution of DNA to Gregsten relies massively on the detection of semen from two males at the time of the crime.

However, back to the hankie...

From section 126:



For me, the evidence is conclusive: the hankie was indeed Hanratty's. But as I pointed out in a previous post, nobody in '61 could have tied that hankie forensically to Hanratty, yet the real gunman (or accomplice) - if not Hanratty - is meant to have gone the extra mile by finding one of his hankies to wrap round the murder weapon before hiding it on the bus?

Isn't it more likely that Hanratty found comfort, in the wake of that disastrous night's work, in the old routine of using his hankie and familiar hiding place for the unwanted remains of his criminal activities?

I wonder if it was chiefly the DNA from the hankie that effectively cleared Alphon of being the gunman.

Love,

Caz
X

Hi Caz,

I could be wrong, but what I think Derrick means is that in 1961, two semen stains were identified, one of them being from a man with blood group O. The reason they knew this was because he was what they call a 'secretor' - that is, his blood group was identifiable in his semen.

The blood group of the other semen stain was not identified - although I am unsure how they distinguished it from the one above - unless they were just using VS's evidence as a guideline.

In 2002, the two semen deposits were identified as two different DNA sequences. Did they, at that point, positively identify one as being from an AB secretor - or did they just refer back to the evidence they were using in 1961 and 'attribute' the second semen deposit to MG - and that is why they used the word 'assumed'?

Concerning the hanky, some people believe the person who knew JH had been at the Vienna Hotel actually supplied the gun and had access to JH's dirty washing. As an aside, during an earlier period of incarceration, Hanratty told a fellow lag that he always carried a clean, spare hanky to use at robberies. He never used gloves. I think he preferred a clean hanky for this purpose because it was better for wiping prints from surfaces and articles.

Julie

[Derrick]

Hi Caz

....Can we at least agree that they found semen deposits from two males on Valerie's underwear back in '61, and were somehow able to determine which had come from the rapist, and that his blood group was O? Nobody appears to have disputed this much...

Agree?...In a word...no.

The only way that there could have been more than one contributor of semen is if the donor of each were group O secretors.

But more importantly, why were all Hanratty's defenders asleep when the 2002 judgement came out, if it was 'completely and utterly wrong on that point'?

No idea.

ATB
Del

[Victor]

I do not think there is any doubt that VS and MG made love at some point prior to, or at the moment of, being accosted. This might have been more than 24 hours before, a few moments before or they may have been interrupted during the act.

Hi all,

My memory is suggesting that MG was off work the week prior to the murder and hadn't seen Valerie for several days, can anyone confirm this? It would mean that VS and MG only had the opportunity for sex on the night of the abduction.

There is also the possibility that VS turned her underwear inside out (or was rushed to put her underwear back on and got it wrong) after sex with MG. I think soemone has previously mentioned a statement from a nurse mentioning that they were 'not worn conventionally' or words to that effect.

KR,
Vic

[caz]

Is it not pure conjecture, that M.G. was of group AB blood type, I have only ever read "assumed" with regards to the AB being M.G.s

Hi moste,

From section 76 of the 2002 Judgement:

xvi) The evidence of blood group consistency, namely that James Hanratty (albeit along with 80% of 40-45% of the male population) was a group O secretor as was the semen found on Valerie Storie’s clothing (Michael Gregsten being a group AB secretor).

Back in '61 they would have ascertained from Valerie the details of the rape and when she and Gregsten had last made love. They would have needed to know Gregsten's blood group before they could establish that the semen - group O - must have come from the rapist. I think we should give them credit for doing the very basics.

Love,

Caz
X

[Derrick]

Hi Caz

...But if, for instance, it was established behind the scenes that the minor staining was group AB semen...

Are you suggesting that the scientists revised their findings on the knickers for the prosecutions purposes?

That could only only have happened after 11th September 1961 when Acott was finally told of the affair by Miss Storie.

If that is so then how much confidence can you have that forensic science is completely objective. Your argument, to me, is somewhat self defeating.

...How can you be sure you have seen everything...

(my bold)

I have. Although not dated at times, as the 2002 judgement states correctly, Mr Nickoll's lab notes, findings and reports are thorough and comprehensive, covering almost 100 items of evidence, including the car.

[Derrick]

Hi Julie

...but what I think Derrick means is that in 1961, two semen stains were identified...

No, that is not what I mean.

Only one blood group could be identified from the semen staining (however many discrete areas of staining there may have been), that of group O secretor.

...The blood group of the other semen stain was not identified - although I am unsure how they distinguished it from the one above...

Only semen from secretors can determine blood group. I am sure, beside that, one semen stain looks very like another but I will bow to further informed knowledge on this from someone more acquainted with the subject.

...In 2002, the two semen deposits were identified as two different DNA sequences. Did they, at that point, positively identify one as being from an AB secretor - or did they just refer back to the evidence they were using in 1961 and 'attribute' the second semen deposit to MG - and that is why they used the word 'assumed'?...

Two points;

The sample of Miss Stories knickers was 1 square centimetre. In 1991, the interested parties didn't think that there was enough material to attempt DNA testing, let alone destroying the majority of it to determine blood groups. Most of the sample was used up by the initial, inconclusive, DNA tests done in 1995. There would have been nothing left to do blood grouping after then anyway!

It is just not possible to unravel DNA into it's constituent parts. You are stuck with a mixed profile, pure and simple. To interpret that mixture will be impossible to do without reference profiles to go by and even then care must be taken to be objective. No reference profile for Gregsten has been ascertained.

Concerning the hanky, some people believe the person who knew JH had been at the Vienna Hotel actually supplied the gun and had access to JH's dirty washing...

That'll be Charles 'Dixie' France then! Plain and simple.

Cheers
Del

[caz]

In 2002, the two semen deposits were identified as two different DNA sequences. Did they, at that point, positively identify one as being from an AB secretor - or did they just refer back to the evidence they were using in 1961 and 'attribute' the second semen deposit to MG - and that is why they used the word 'assumed'?

Hi Julie,

I suggest you ask Derrick. It seems you and I are both muddled about there ever being 'two' semen deposits.

If Valerie revealed at any time that she and Gregsten had made love in the car that evening and semen had leaked onto her undies, then it was hardly unreasonable to assume in 2002 that two male DNA profiles - Gregsten's and the rapist's - would have been present back in '61, along with Valerie's DNA, which survived and was detectable 40 years on. What is not clear is whether seminal fluid was established as the source of the male DNA picked up with Valerie's all those years later (Hanratty's and the remaining DNA attributed to Gregsten) and whether it was possible to confirm the respective blood groups. I see Derrick says no to the latter, due to the tiny fragment left for testing, but I would prefer a second opinion from someone with no horse in the race.

Concerning the hanky, some people believe the person who knew JH had been at the Vienna Hotel actually supplied the gun and had access to JH's dirty washing. As an aside, during an earlier period of incarceration, Hanratty told a fellow lag that he always carried a clean, spare hanky to use at robberies. He never used gloves. I think he preferred a clean hanky for this purpose because it was better for wiping prints from surfaces and articles.

The gun was hidden on the bus soon after the murder, so Hanratty may have used the nearest hankie to hand - one he was currently using to blow his nose. Soon after ridding himself of the murder weapon in London he gets as far away as possible and blow me down he suddenly manages to establish his presence in Liverpool beyond doubt by sending that telegram. Great alibi had anyone snuffed it 200 miles away that night - shame it didn't work for the crucial time period.

Do you agree that if Hanratty was innocent, someone in his circle must have been the gunman (or a close associate of the gunman), to take his hankie and use his hiding place to dispose of their murder weapon?

Or have you another theory that would fit with the evidence?

Love,

Caz
X

[Derrick]

Hi Vic

...It would mean that VS and MG only had the opportunity for sex on the night of the abduction...

Nearly three weeks after the murder, on September 11th, Miss Storie finally confessed to Acott that she and Gregsten had been carrying on an affair. She said that they had had sex in the car on the Sunday night before the murder, which would be the 20th August.

This is from the transcript of the 2002 appeal hearing that dealt with the DNA evidence (22nd April 2002). Mr Sweeney, for the respondent, tells the court;

In the seminal fraction, there are a major profile
and some minor pieces. The major profile, again in
yellow, matching the appellant's DNA profile. The
seminal fraction minor profile having a small number of
readings in red and one in blue, as your Lordships can
see. Insofar as the blue one is concerned, that is a
match with Miss Storie. Insofar as the red one is
concerned, that is another person, neither the
appellant, nor Miss Storie, which, as it happens, would
be consistent with finding Mr Gregsten's DNA, there
having' been intercourse between him and Miss Storie some
two days before the fatal event.

Neither this fact nor any finding of AB semen is ever mentioned again in the whole of the transcript.

You can read the entire transcript of the DNA evidence for the 2002 appeal in Rob Harriman's book, Hanratty: The DNA Travesty here;

http://www.amazon.co.uk/HANRATTY-TRAVESTY-really-prove-guilt-ebook/dp/B00JI4FZUE/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1422377809&sr=8-1&keywords=rob+harriman

HTH
Del

[caz]

That'll be Charles 'Dixie' France then! Plain and simple.

The Frances were apparently not told by Hanratty that he had been in Rhyl when the murder was committed. Could it not have backfired fatally on Dixie had Hanratty been able to prove his presence there? Wouldn't Hanratty have worked out he was being set up by the same man he'd recently told about hiding stuff on buses, who also knew he'd stayed in the Vienna, where the cartridge cases were planted in the very room he had slept in? If he'd been eliminated by a proven alibi, the police would have been looking for the associate who had tried to stitch him up.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Quote:
In the seminal fraction, there are a major profile
and some minor pieces. The major profile, again in
yellow, matching the appellant's DNA profile. The
seminal fraction minor profile having a small number of
readings in red and one in blue, as your Lordships can
see. Insofar as the blue one is concerned, that is a
match with Miss Storie. Insofar as the red one is
concerned, that is another person, neither the
appellant, nor Miss Storie, which, as it happens, would
be consistent with finding Mr Gregsten's DNA, there
having' been intercourse between him and Miss Storie some
two days before the fatal event.

Many thanks for this, Derrick.

So it would seem they were able to establish that the source of the male DNA was 'seminal' and that the 'readings in red' represented one other person (singular).

That is most helpful.

It certainly would be consistent with the timing of the two sexual acts described by Valerie, and the 'major' profile - matching Hanratty - representing the rapist's O group semen originally found in '61.

Nothing much untoward here - unless one is already convinced of it.

Love,

Caz
X

[Limehouse]

Hi Julie



No, that is not what I mean.

Only one blood group could be identified from the semen staining (however many discrete areas of staining there may have been), that of group O secretor.



Only semen from secretors can determine blood group. I am sure, beside that, one semen stain looks very like another but I will bow to further informed knowledge on this from someone more acquainted with the subject.



Two points;

The sample of Miss Stories knickers was 1 square centimetre. In 1991, the interested parties didn't think that there was enough material to attempt DNA testing, let alone destroying the majority of it to determine blood groups. Most of the sample was used up by the initial, inconclusive, DNA tests done in 1995. There would have been nothing left to do blood grouping after then anyway!

It is just not possible to unravel DNA into it's constituent parts. You are stuck with a mixed profile, pure and simple. To interpret that mixture will be impossible to do without reference profiles to go by and even then care must be taken to be objective. No reference profile for Gregsten has been ascertained.



That'll be Charles 'Dixie' France then! Plain and simple.

Cheers
Del

Thanks for the clarification Derrick. As is very evident, I am no scientist.

[Limehouse]

Hi Julie,

I suggest you ask Derrick. It seems you and I are both muddled about there ever being 'two' semen deposits.

If Valerie revealed at any time that she and Gregsten had made love in the car that evening and semen had leaked onto her undies, then it was hardly unreasonable to assume in 2002 that two male DNA profiles - Gregsten's and the rapist's - would have been present back in '61, along with Valerie's DNA, which survived and was detectable 40 years on. What is not clear is whether seminal fluid was established as the source of the male DNA picked up with Valerie's all those years later (Hanratty's and the remaining DNA attributed to Gregsten) and whether it was possible to confirm the respective blood groups. I see Derrick says no to the latter, due to the tiny fragment left for testing, but I would prefer a second opinion from someone with no horse in the race.



The gun was hidden on the bus soon after the murder, so Hanratty may have used the nearest hankie to hand - one he was currently using to blow his nose. Soon after ridding himself of the murder weapon in London he gets as far away as possible and blow me down he suddenly manages to establish his presence in Liverpool beyond doubt by sending that telegram. Great alibi had anyone snuffed it 200 miles away that night - shame it didn't work for the crucial time period.

Do you agree that if Hanratty was innocent, someone in his circle must have been the gunman (or a close associate of the gunman), to take his hankie and use his hiding place to dispose of their murder weapon?

Or have you another theory that would fit with the evidence?

Love,

Caz
X

Hi Caz,

Yes, I think it is entirely possible that someone in Hanratty's circle framed him for the murder and knew it would be easy to frame him because they knew he was going to Liverpool and what he was going to Liverpool for. They knew it would have been difficult, but not impossible, for him to prove his alibi. It is possible that this is what might have happened.

Julie

[Limehouse]

Hi Vic



Nearly three weeks after the murder, on September 11th, Miss Storie finally confessed to Acott that she and Gregsten had been carrying on an affair. She said that they had had sex in the car on the Sunday night before the murder, which would be the 20th August.

This is from the transcript of the 2002 appeal hearing that dealt with the DNA evidence (22nd April 2002). Mr Sweeney, for the respondent, tells the court;
Neither this fact nor any finding of AB semen is ever mentioned again in the whole of the transcript.

You can read the entire transcript of the DNA evidence for the 2002 appeal in Rob Harriman's book, Hanratty: The DNA Travesty here;

http://www.amazon.co.uk/HANRATTY-TRAVESTY-really-prove-guilt-ebook/dp/B00JI4FZUE/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1422377809&sr=8-1&keywords=rob+harriman

HTH
Del

So, there is no evidence that VS and MG had sex on the night of the murder and there is no evidence that either semen stain was blood group AB. That's very worrying.

[Spitfire]

It should be remembered that it was the Hanratty faction that wanted the two pieces of evidence, the knickers fragment and the hankie, to be subjected to DNA testing. Indeed the well respected Dr Patrick Lincoln, who had been retained by the Hanratty family went on record on camera after the first round of testing had been not produced results and expressed the view that he was hopeful that meaningful results could be achieved by further testing.

Furthermore, the Hanratty family's lawyer, Geoff Bindman, expressed the view that the DNA testing could not only exculpate Hanratty but be sufficient to pin the blame on the hapless Alphon.

Unfortunately for the Hanratty family the DNA tests shows that the hankie around the gun was one on which Hanratty had blown his freckled nose. Obviously this of itself would not prove that he had committed the murder, but it does bring it very close to him. That Hanratty's DNA is found on the seminal stained knickers fragment does seem conclusive. It was certainly sufficient for Michael Mansfield to agree with the prosecution that the murderer was NOT Alphon.

[OneRound]

...

However, back to the hankie...

From section 126:
...



For me, the evidence is conclusive: the hankie was indeed Hanratty's. But as I pointed out in a previous post, nobody in '61 could have tied that hankie forensically to Hanratty, yet the real gunman (or accomplice) - if not Hanratty - is meant to have gone the extra mile by finding one of his hankies to wrap round the murder weapon before hiding it on the bus?

Isn't it more likely that Hanratty found comfort, in the wake of that disastrous night's work, in the old routine of using his hankie and familiar hiding place for the unwanted remains of his criminal activities?

I wonder if it was chiefly the DNA from the hankie that effectively cleared Alphon of being the gunman.

...

Well, Caz, you don't appear at all ring rusty after your absence from the A6 board. Some hard punches hitting the spot and especially imo in respect of that hankie.

There's certainly been a lot of confusion on this board about the hankie. If there was no distinguishing pattern or monogram on the hankie (as now appears was the case with there being no corroborative evidence that Hanratty admitted the hankie was his), I agree with you that it is highly unlikely that anyone would want to go the distance and risk of ''the extra mile'' by finding, stealing and planting one of Hanratty's hankies on the bus when there was nothing at the time to forensically or otherwise link the hankie to Hanratty.

I accept Dixie France had the means to do so but that would surely have been an unwise move from him if his purpose was to falsely implicate Hanratty. It would surely have only concentrated further attention on France if an innocent Hanratty had claimed he was being framed.

Possibly you are right in wondering whether it was chiefly the DNA from the hankie that effectively cleared Alphon of being the gunman. If so - and this is definitely music to year ears, Caz - doesn't that then clear everyone other than Hanratty? As I've said before, given that the DNA evidence was disputed I don't follow how the Defence at the 2002 Appeal could have ruled anyone in or, more importantly, anyone out.

That all said, a couple of further points about the hankie:

1. I assume finger prints could have been obtained from the hankie in 1961. It seems odd that Hanratty's weren't found on the hankie, particularly as he had blown his nose on it.

2. The hankie was found in an envelope (inside another envelope) at Bedfordshire Constabulary as part of the investigation by the CCRC. This was more than thirty years after Hanratty's trial. I'm not suggesting foul play here but I do remain slightly uncomfortable about using modern scientific methods to prove guilt when modern safeguards which are normally a pre-requisite of such methods have not been applied.

Best regards,

OneRound