Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

A6 Rebooted

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • moste
    replied
    Bindman wasn’t in any position to agree or disagree one way or another, he would have to be led by the specialist in the field, (Lincoln)but as you say Nick should have called a halt to the whole proceedings. Something very fishy about Hanratty’s representation in my opinion.

    Leave a comment:


  • moste
    replied
    Originally posted by NickB View Post
    Well they were invited to have someone observe the testing and it was up to them whether they did or not. On the documentary Lincoln appeared to be happy with what was happening, the material that was being worked on etc.

    You have said Lincoln left (in 1997?) because he did not regard LCN to be a valid system. If this was so and Bindman agreed with this position I would have expected him to say at this point that the testing procedure was unsatisfactory and should not be pursued. By not doing he was giving credence to its validity.
    ‘ Invited to have someone observe’ . Since as you say Woffindon and Bindmann pressed for the tests to be carried out, then surely it should have been a team of defence experts conducting those tests , and inviting the prosecution to have a couple of their own experts to look in on the results. As it was , Lincoln withdrew since he wasn’t happy with the LCN method, Dr. Edison should have reneged from any further involvement. Rob Harriman (author of the DNA book) regarded Edison’s presence to be redundant, since he admittedly had very little experience with that method of DNA testing. The whole thing sounds to me like a sham.
    Last edited by moste; 03-06-2021, 02:24 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • NickB
    replied
    Well they were invited to have someone observe the testing and it was up to them whether they did or not. On the documentary Lincoln appeared to be happy with what was happening, the material that was being worked on etc.

    You have said Lincoln left (in 1997?) because he did not regard LCN to be a valid system. If this was so and Bindman agreed with this position I would have expected him to say at this point that the testing procedure was unsatisfactory and should not be pursued. By not doing he was giving credence to its validity.

    Leave a comment:


  • Derrick
    replied
    Originally posted by NickB View Post
    ...The defence had their own experts who observed the DNA testing. The first was Dr Patrick Lincoln; he was succeeded by Dr Martin Everson....
    Just a quick question.

    How are you sure that Dr Evison observed any DNA testing?

    Delboy

    Leave a comment:


  • NickB
    replied
    It was Woffinden and Bindman who pressed for the DNA tests. They were pleased to receive a letter from the Home Office dated 8-Feb-95: “I am writing to let you know that the Metropolitan Police have agreed to consider the question of DNA profiling in regard to such exhibits as still exist.”

    The defence had their own experts who observed the DNA testing. The first was Dr Patrick Lincoln; he was succeeded by Dr Martin Everson.

    On the Woffinden TV documentary Lincoln said: “There has been success in that the DNA has been extracted from one of the exhibits and that has now been used in a first set of tests to try and identify the structures of the DNA in that stained material. The result of those first tests: we have not been able to identify the structures. But there are other testings that we can do and we shall progress with those.”

    Woffinden said: “The material is in proper storage and, with techniques in DNA technology improving all the time, a definitive result could be obtained at some point in the near future.”

    Only after the results was contamination mentioned, and even then in cautionary terms. On the Horizon programme Everson said: “I think there a number of specific circumstances where I don’t believe the possibility of contamination can be excluded. I think there is a possibility that contamination could have occurred.”

    Further, the defence stated on behalf of the appellant: “Should it transpire that all possibility of contamination can be excluded, the DNA evidence points conclusively to James Hanratty having been both the murderer and the rapist.” Acceptance by the defence of the legitimacy of the testing was also demonstrated by declaring Alphon’s innocence based on the DNA.

    Leave a comment:


  • cobalt
    replied
    Lawyers are paid big money to get the wording right. The form of words used in the 2002 appeal suggests that there was more than one slip available at the time of recent testing.

    “The test was conducted on the small remaining piece of fabric from the knickers (part having been used in the 1995 experiment), a piece of material from one of the slips and the areas of staining from the handkerchief. ''

    I understand that ‘the slips’ could be a historical reference to the slips that existed prior to 1962, but am not clear why this ambiguity would have been introduced into their wording so many years later. Why refer to ‘one of the slips’ when only one slip had ever been relevant to the case in 1962? And far from being a crucial piece of evidence, the slip in 1962 could not be adequately tested for blood group so was presumably introduced at trial for presentational reasons. Why did the learned judges not simply write ‘a piece of material from the slip?’ None of the other slips had ever featured at trial and had been destroyed, so by writing this way they were only confusing the issue.

    Regarding conspiracies, they don’t have to be that giant to be pulled off even in a murder trial. Guildford, Birmingham and Kisko are three examples off the top of my head. In each case the prosecution evidence was undermined shortly after conviction. The conspiracy is less about the actual trial- mistakes happen in any system- but about the subsequent attempts to conceal the truth afterwards.

    Leave a comment:


  • caz
    replied
    Originally posted by cobalt View Post
    From the wording at the appeal, it seems that the slips were growing in number. The slips were reported destroyed in May 1962. Yet the wording suggests there was more than a fragment of slip, but actually a number of slips available for testing many years later.


    'a piece of material from one of the slips'
    I think it's pretty straightforward, cobalt. Both slips were destroyed, but a piece that had been previously excised from one of the slips was retained, presumably because there was some staining on it?

    What are you and moste suggesting here? That it's ridiculous to think that any of these things would have been retained, so every detail about the victim's underclothing and the hankie, plus the DNA findings, were fabricated - er - from whole cloth?

    If that's the way this is going, you may as well trash all the evidence in this case and argue that this was one giant, ongoing conspiracy, involving both the justice system and Hanratty's associates, who all had their reasons for throwing him under the bus where the murder weapon was found.

    Love,

    Caz
    X

    Leave a comment:


  • moste
    replied
    remember the entire storage facility was emptied and moved to a new location back in the 'was it' the 1980s ?

    Leave a comment:


  • moste
    replied
    Originally posted by cobalt View Post
    From the wording at the appeal, it seems that the slips were growing in number. The slips were reported destroyed in May 1962. Yet the wording suggests there was more than a fragment of slip, but actually a number of slips available for testing many years later.


    'a piece of material from one of the slips'
    So, as it was surmised some time back,that the Morris minor was wrecked after the trial , why would exhibits be saved after the person was hanged? I can well see these artifacts being stored where the guilty party is imprisoned, but not in these circumstances. What was the protocol for redundant exhibit storage, after the finality of capital punishment ?

    Leave a comment:


  • cobalt
    replied
    From the wording at the appeal, it seems that the slips were growing in number. The slips were reported destroyed in May 1962. Yet the wording suggests there was more than a fragment of slip, but actually a number of slips available for testing many years later.


    'a piece of material from one of the slips'

    Leave a comment:


  • moste
    replied
    Originally posted by cobalt View Post
    R. v. James Hanratty (deceased) [2002] EWCA Crim 1141
    [This version of the judgment has been prepared by: Dr Robert N Moles and Bibi Sangha Underlining where it occurs is for editorial emphasis]

    That is my source, which contains a massive contradiction apparently missed by Hanratty’s lawyers. I think Houston , we have a problem. Was the slip destroyed or retained? Thanks for Oneround for alerrting me.

    “At the trial which took place between 22 January 1962 and 17 February 1962 all the exhibits with the exception of a portion of the slip and the fragment of the knickers referred to previously were produced and in due course, taken out by the jury on retirement. Thereafter, on 9 April 1962, Hanratty’s suitcase and clothing were returned to his father and on 22 May 1962 Storie’s slips, her knickers and various samples were all destroyed.”

    “The test was conducted on the small remaining piece of fabric from the knickers (part having been used in the 1995 experiment), a piece of material from one of the slips and the areas of staining from the handkerchief. This time the experiment did produce results in that profiles were obtained both from the fabric and from the handkerchief which could be compared with samples taken from Hanratty’s brother, Michael.”

    I thought the slips were destroyed in May 1962? How did they reappear like Caz’s handkerchief in 2002?
    So are we to take from this, that Hanratty’s hanky was destroyed along with Stories stuff, or given back to his Father in a
    suite case? Or a 3rd option , saved down in the catacombs, for 30 years waiting for someone to invent DNA ?

    Leave a comment:


  • caz
    replied
    Originally posted by cobalt View Post
    R. v. James Hanratty (deceased) [2002] EWCA Crim 1141
    [This version of the judgment has been prepared by: Dr Robert N Moles and Bibi Sangha Underlining where it occurs is for editorial emphasis]

    That is my source, which contains a massive contradiction apparently missed by Hanratty’s lawyers. I think Houston , we have a problem. Was the slip destroyed or retained? Thanks for Oneround for alerrting me.

    “At the trial which took place between 22 January 1962 and 17 February 1962 all the exhibits with the exception of a portion of the slip and the fragment of the knickers referred to previously were produced and in due course, taken out by the jury on retirement. Thereafter, on 9 April 1962, Hanratty’s suitcase and clothing were returned to his father and on 22 May 1962 Storie’s slips, her knickers and various samples were all destroyed.”

    “The test was conducted on the small remaining piece of fabric from the knickers (part having been used in the 1995 experiment), a piece of material from one of the slips and the areas of staining from the handkerchief. This time the experiment did produce results in that profiles were obtained both from the fabric and from the handkerchief which could be compared with samples taken from Hanratty’s brother, Michael.”

    I thought the slips were destroyed in May 1962? How did they reappear like Caz’s handkerchief in 2002?
    The main parts of the slips and knickers were destroyed, along with 'various' samples, cobalt. It isn't stated specifically that those samples included the excised portion from the slip, or any part of the hankie. The inference I get is that what remained after everything else was destroyed were: the small piece of fabric from the knickers; the piece of material from the slip; and 'the areas of staining' on the hankie. It isn't clear if the whole hankie was retained or just the stained parts.

    Love,

    Caz
    X

    Leave a comment:


  • caz
    replied
    Originally posted by cobalt View Post
    I’m more concerned with the cartridge cases found at the scene of the crime. The ones that were found under seats- in the Vienna Hotel and the bus- are not so helpful. If they could be tested and linked to Hanratty’s fingerprints then the case against him would be strengthened.
    Caz is as keen on the handkerchief as a sign of guilt as was Othello, and thinks that it already makes the link that I am asking to be established through cartridge cases. She may be correct but the role of the handkerchief has changed over time. From the appeal in 2002:

    “The handkerchief came to the laboratory on 25 August {1961} was screened for blood and semen and, none being found, seems to have been put to one side.”

    Put to one side but not destroyed apparently, since it was later discovered in 1997 and Hanratty’s mucus gave him away. That is what we are told but since the handkerchief was presumably never a point of issue at trial, it was remarkably prescient for it to be retained. Why retain a snotty hanky? All the more so when we are told what actually was destroyed in the aftermath of the trial:

    “Thereafter, on 9 April 1962, Hanratty’s suitcase and clothing were returned to his father and on 22 May 1962 Storie’s slips, her knickers and various samples were all destroyed.”

    I remain sceptical about how certain items are discovered years later in police basements and others have been lost or have degraded. Do the cartridge cases from the murder scene still exist for example or were they flung out as well? I ask as a sceptic who knows that DNA evidence is easily planted or can occur through contamination but that planting fingerprints without a corpse is well nigh impossible.
    I'm sorry cobalt, but I'm struggling with how you believe Hanratty's DNA could easily have been planted on the hankie - or could have contaminated it by accident - in such a way as to be compatible with the snot. Whose snot was it anyway, if not Hanratty's, and why was there no other DNA profile to account for it?

    I suspect you may be better off arguing that the hankie was not even tested, or was destroyed, and the DNA 'evidence' was fabricated from whole cloth [pun not intended but gratefully received].

    Love,

    Caz
    X

    Leave a comment:


  • cobalt
    replied
    R. v. James Hanratty (deceased) [2002] EWCA Crim 1141
    [This version of the judgment has been prepared by: Dr Robert N Moles and Bibi Sangha Underlining where it occurs is for editorial emphasis]

    That is my source, which contains a massive contradiction apparently missed by Hanratty’s lawyers. I think Houston , we have a problem. Was the slip destroyed or retained? Thanks for Oneround for alerrting me.

    “At the trial which took place between 22 January 1962 and 17 February 1962 all the exhibits with the exception of a portion of the slip and the fragment of the knickers referred to previously were produced and in due course, taken out by the jury on retirement. Thereafter, on 9 April 1962, Hanratty’s suitcase and clothing were returned to his father and on 22 May 1962 Storie’s slips, her knickers and various samples were all destroyed.”

    “The test was conducted on the small remaining piece of fabric from the knickers (part having been used in the 1995 experiment), a piece of material from one of the slips and the areas of staining from the handkerchief. This time the experiment did produce results in that profiles were obtained both from the fabric and from the handkerchief which could be compared with samples taken from Hanratty’s brother, Michael.”

    I thought the slips were destroyed in May 1962? How did they reappear like Caz’s handkerchief in 2002?

    Leave a comment:


  • OneRound
    replied
    Originally posted by cobalt View Post
    According to the appeal, Valerie Storie's slip was destroyed in May 1962, soon after the trial. Are you sure it was sent for testing for DNA?

    I assume the slip was not used at trial since it yielded no evidence then, same as the handkerchief. Yet the slip was destroyed and the handkerchief retained.
    Hi Cobalt - I can only quote from para 108 of the 2002 Court of Appeal judgement.

    Having referred to the unsuccessful DNA testing in 1995, - ''However, in November 1997 after much consultation further DNA analyses were commissioned this time using highly sensitive DNA amplification techniques. The test was conducted on the small remaining piece of fabric from the knickers (part having been used in the 1995 experiment), a piece of material from one of the slips and the areas of staining from the handkerchief. This time the experiment did produce results in that profiles were obtained both from the fabric and from the handkerchief which could be compared with samples taken from James Hanratty's brother, Michael, and his mother, Mary.''

    The Court make no further reference to the slip.

    Best regards,
    OneRound

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X