A6 Rebooted

[cobalt]

djw,

They might open it in 2060 along with the document relating to William Ewer's libel case against Times Newspapers.
Here is a copy from the National Archives site which confirms in 2020 the decision from 1973 to close the record for 86 years. Since you clearly know your way around these matters, why would such a precise date as 86 have been chosen? I realise the verdict of the A6 Case was in 1962 but that would not make a round 100 years either.

And what are the 'two exemptions' (apologies that the margin did not copy in my quote) listed as 'Health and Safety' or 'Personnel information where the applicant is a third party.' I assume these are circumstances that would permit the opening of the record before 2060, but who would constitute a 'third party?'

Closed For 86 years

2020

Health and Safety

Personal information where the applicant is a 3rd party

01 January 2060

[djw]

Well done in finding it. The very fact that the report remains under wraps says it all.

Further to this, the National Archives also hold a copy and I made a FOI request in 2023. This was refused and I requested an internal review which has just also come back refused.

I would like to share the response here.

[caz]

Hi djw,

I recently watched an engrossing 2023 tv drama and related documentary on the 1973 Llandarcy murders mentioned above, referred to as the Steeltown Murders. Joseph Kappen was eventually identified as the prime suspect from familial DNA evidence. His remains were exhumed in 2002, and a perfect DNA match was established to the killer's profile from the victims' clothing, proving his guilt beyond doubt.

This immediately made me think of the A6 case, when Hanratty's remains were found to match the DNA profile from the surviving victim's underwear and the hanky wrapped round the murder weapon. I did wonder if the same testing method was used in Kappen's case, and whether the usual objections in Hanratty's case still apply in 2023. If not, would this only leave the contamination and conspiracy arguments, which would appear to rely on a) DNA from Hanratty accidentally coming into direct contact with the knicker fragment, due to poor handling and storage conditions back in 1961, and b) the real killer - or an accomplice - having somehow obtained a used hanky from Hanratty [decades before there was any way to identify it forensically] to plant on a London bus with the gun?

Love,

Caz
X

[djw]

Someone involved in forensics has posted on linkedin

https://www.linkedin.com/posts/jonathan-whitaker-0a846650_it-is-just-over-20-years-since-the-forensic-activity-7124433926588145664-95lE?trk=public_profile_like_view

It is just over 20 years since the Forensic Science Service developed the Low Copy Number (LCN) DNA profiling method for application to retained exhibits in the James Hanratty case. The increased sensitivity of the LCN method meant that there was a greater chance of obtaining successful DNA profile result in which a low amount of DNA might be expected; however even though an LCN method was applied it did not implicitly follow that the DNA sample would contain a low template amount of DNA. LCN methodology was questioned during the 2007 Omagh bombing case. Concern was raised about scientific validation and sample integrity. Following the judgment, the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) in discussion with CPS, wrote to Chief Constables recommending that the police should operate an interim suspension on the use of LCN DNA analysis. Between 21/12/07 and 14/1/08 CPS carried out an internal review and concluded that LCN DNA analysis provided by the FSS should remain available as potentially admissible evidence. Just prior to the Omagh verdict the Forensic Science Regulator commissioned an expert review of "low template DNA analysis", including the LCN service offered by the FSS. The review, led by Professor Brian Caddy of Strathclyde University, began on 8/11/07 and delivered its report in April 2008. The Caddy Review concluded that there was no reason to believe that there was any inherent unreliability in the LCN DNA analysis process which had been validated by the FSS in accordance with its internal validation procedures. LCN methodology was applied to many high profile cases from many different countries: R v James Hanratty - samples from semen staining on knickers of female victim and from mucous staining on a handkerchief wrapped around gun matched the deceased remains of JH who was exhumed to obtain reference samples. Australia: R v Bradley Murdoch 2005 Australia - disappearance of Peter Falconio R v Bradley Edwards , Western Australia case of the Claremont Serial Killings Scotland: R v Angus Sinclair (World’s End murders). England: R v Ian Lowther murder of Mary Gregson) R v Tony Jasinskyj murder of Marion Croft Wales: Llandarcy murders, Joseph Kappen (first application of familial searching led to identification of the suspect) - exhumation of suspect led to refernce samples being obtained. R v Mark Hansom murder of Geraldine Palk Sweden: murder of Anna Lindh. Ireland: R v Noel Long murder of Nora Sheehan

[djw]

I've now finished Executed by Rob Harriman. Chapters are not numbered but ten or so out of twelve or so are about DNA testing. This includes what DNA profiles were found on exhibits, the cycles to amplify this, the composite profile produced for Hanratty, what a match means, what loci constitute a match, what the probability of matching to a different persons DNA is measured in Bayes odds and the way this is relayed in court by expert witnesses, the FSS, judges and juries. Its not clear if LCN test or SGM plus was used, if Hanratty's alleles match and what epithelial sample testing is. The particular LCN test is also questioned for reliability and error rate. The Liverpool alibi is sympathetically treated relying on the testimony of Mrs Dinwoodie and some others.

[ansonman]

Truth is stranger than fiction. Trouble is, in the case of Hanratty, we will never get to the truth. At least not in my lifetime.

[djw]

I've also just noticed new fiction by David J Cooper titled Hanratty - The Final Curtain

[djw]

I've also just noticed new fiction by David J Cooper titled Hanratty - The Final r

[ansonman]

I cannot find any reviews of the book except this rather short one. I don't get the feeling there is much if any new material but will be happy to be proved wrong. Well spotted as the book was only published a week ago.

Executed: But was James Hanratty Innocent?: A Damning Indictment of the DNA Evidence Used to Condemn Him
by
Robert Harriman

Tamara's review
Jul 18, 2023
it was amazing
** spoiler alert ** Thank you to Net Galley and the publisher for this arc. This book was well written and it made me angry with the court system. I firmly believe James Hanratty was railroaded and more than likely the so called DNA evidence was contaminated by improper handling. Unfortunately Britain's judicial system will never admit to this. In my opinion he was murdered by his on country.

[djw]

On 4 August 2023, Rob Harriman published 'Executed: But was James Hanratty innocent?'

https://www.pen-and-sword.co.uk/Executed-But-was-James-Hanratty-Innocent-Hardback/p/23769

Harriman previously published 'Hanratty: The DNA travesty' in 2014. I wonder if there is lots of new material? It also claims to be the first to review the courts decision but haven't several been published since then? Leonard Miller, Paul Stickler etc.

[moste]

I’ve been really immersed in the Nicola Bulley case of late. The coroner report due out late June , I fear and I have warned folks to be ready for a Hanratty type sham. Where the whole **** and caboodle will be swept under the carpet.

[moste]

Where would you start indeed. Cobalt ,You do have a knack of putting things into prospective.

Hi, Julie good to see you back.

[cobalt]

Limehouse has used the word ‘complex’ to describe the A6 Case and that has become a well known euphemism issued by police when they are faffing around and haven’t got a clue what is going on. We often hear that ‘The inquiry is fast moving, complex and ongoing.’ But in the A6 Case it is entirely appropriate in terms of motive.

Consider the problems the police had in the A6 Case. It seemed to be a simple case of robbery, albeit at gunpoint which was unusual for the time. Except the goods were returned to the victims. Or was it ‘carjacking?’ Not quite, since the car was still in the field for some time after the initial approach. Were we now talking kidnapping? Yes, but a kidnapping surely has some intended aim to be achieved. Yet this kidnapper stopped for petrol, cigarettes and ‘a kip.’ The crime then degenerated into murder and rape. Five possible motives, none of which seemed to have any clear purpose.

Purely for the purposes of hypothesis, what if the investigating police had not been able to obtain testimony from Valerie Storie, the victim who against all odds survived the ordeal? What would they have made of a car last seen in Taplow turning up near a London tube station, with the occupants lying dead 25 miles away in a lay-by at Deadman’s Hill? Where would you start?

[ansonman]

A copy of the Roger Matthews report has been located at the Ministry of Justice but they have exercised an exemption from disclosure according to this FOI request https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/reque...opolitan_polic

Well done in finding it. The very fact that the report remains under wraps says it all.

[Limehouse]

Hello A6 contributors,

It has been a long time since I contributed to these boards, and this thread in particular, but it is nice to see the debate is still bubbling along.

Nothing has changed concerning my view of this case. I am convinced Hanratty was innocent and the real killer was an unknown man who disappeared into the mists of time. The case remains complex and intriguing, almost as if it jumped out of the pages of a notable crime novelist.

I will try to visit the site more often and perhaps catch up with more of the current debate. Meanwhile, take care all.