A6 Rebooted

[Graham]

I mean the third link (ending with 597), which is the middle picture if you play the video through!

Right! Got you!

If you type 'Gladys Deacon' into Alamy search, this will take you to another photo of her.

Graham

[NickB]

I think the others are old flames, as they don’t look like Mary Meaden or Carol France - photos of whom Natalie posted here ...

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?p=203643#post203643

Looking at Hanratty senior’s comments on that clip, he does not seem to acknowledge that Jim was estranged from his family at the time of the murder. He was in the Burnt Oak area a lot, but avoided visiting his parents. Apart from a 3 month period when he tried (and failed) to go straight, his parents did not know what he was like for the last few years of his life.

With regards to violence, this is what the Sunday Times said about his last prison term:
‘During this term he became recalcitrant, with a particular habit of spitting in warders’ faces, and was put on 19 separate charges. He was one of only four men out of 1,300 in the fifties who served his three years without remission.’

There was also the punch up in Liverpool, about which we have only Jim’s account.

And we do not know whether he would have committed violence during his robberies because (as far as I know) only once did he encounter anyone. On this occasion he was burgling a house and saw a woman coming up the drive. His reaction was interesting - to open the front door and invite her in.

[Alfie]

... Apart from a 3 month period when he tried (and failed) to go straight, his parents did not know what he was like for the last few years of his life.

This is a good point. With the possible exception of Dixie France, Louise Anderson, and maybe Laurence Lanigan, nobody seems to have gotten close to Hanratty in this period. And France and Anderson turned their backs on him as soon as he was charged with the A6 murder.

We're all guessing when it comes to deciding what sort of person Hanratty really was.

[Alfie]

The second semen deposit in Valerie Storie's knickers

Delicate subject, but as far as I know, it is generally accepted that the last time Valerie and Gregsten had sexual intercourse was in the cornfield on Sunday, Aug 20. Yet an earlier deposit of semen was found in her knickers, along with the rapist's, when they were tested following the rape.

I can think of only three ways that earlier deposit would have gotten there:

(1) Valerie was wearing the same knickers she'd worn on the Sunday previous.
(2) She and Gregsten had sex in the Morris Minor on the evening of Aug 22.
(3) She had sex with someone else that day, prior to being raped.

I think (3) can be safely ruled out, and I'm inclined to disregard one, also - I can't imagine a young woman like Valerie wearing the same soiled knickers for three days running.

Which leaves (2), Valerie and Gregsten having sex in the car prior to being accosted by Hanratty, n'est pas?

[OneRound]

Just a few comments now about the DNA.

Matters are set out by the Court of Appeal in paras 106 to 128 of their 2002 judgement (link in Caz's post #4282 above).

For any newcomers to this thread (and it's great there are some), it's only right to flag from outset that Hanratty's family and legal team were originally very keen to use DNA findings in an attempt to establish his innocence. However, they challenged its integrity once the findings pointed more towards his guilt.

It is also only right to declare up front that I am far more a scientific numbskull than an eminent scientist, of whom several convinced the Court of Appeal of his guilt. I am no position to say anyone was wrong but I do feel aspects of this part of the Court's judgement raise queries.

Main aspects for me are as below:

1. As well as Hanratty's DNA (he was a blood group O secretor), the Court also refer to DNA from the semen of an AB blood group secretor being shown to be on the fragment of Valerie Storie's knickers and ''attribute'' that to her lover Michael Gregsten. The Court could of course be right there but, nonetheless, I feel the ''presumption'' (another term used by the Court) should have been thoroughly checked. After all, the Court insisted on Hanratty's body being exhumed to check on the accuracy of findings for him. The contrast in approach between the two DNA findings is massive and to my mind just as much surprising. If the AB DNA had been cross-checked to Gregsten and found not to be his, that would have invalidated the DNA evidence totally. Admittedly, that is a big ''if''. However, in my opinion, the Court should have been relying on a thorough cross-check and not a ''presumption''.

Something else which increases my unease in this regard relates to when Gregsten last had sex with Ms Storie. I believe she said this was several days before the murder. If that's right, it would seem to lessen the likelihood of it being his AB semen on the knickers. Odd.

[I appreciate Del has strong views about the reported AB findings. My comments stem from the Court's judgement.]

2. The Court regarded it as very damning for Hanratty that only his and Valerie Storie's DNA plus that ''attributed'' to Gregsten were located on the knicker fragment tested in 1997. The Court effectively took the view that if Hanratty's DNA got there through contamination and he was not the rapist, the DNA of another male (ie the rapist) would have had to have been there as well. As there wasn't, that meant Hanratty had to be the rapist. I follow the logic. However, what was being checked was only ''a fragment'' which had been cut away from the knickers for basic tests thirty-six years earlier following the crime and then reduced further in 1995 when another part was removed for initial and unsuccessful DNA testing. Could the rapist's DNA have been on the part that was removed in 1995 and destroyed when unsuccessfully tested? I obviously don't know but feel it's a fair question.

3. At the 2002 appeal, Hanratty's legal team argued that the knicker fragment might have been contaminated as a result of spillage from a broken vial, containing a liquidised sample from Hanratty, stored and found in an envelope alongside it. A boffin with thirty years' experience told the Court he had never come across a vial containing contents to be stored in this way and, whilst acknowledging their own lack of scientific experience, the Court commented that it would seem strange to do so. Fair enough. However, wouldn't it have been even more strange to store an empty vial in this way?

4. A fair bit of weight appears to have been given by the Court to the DNA findings of Hanratty and Valerie showing a ''typical distribution'' consistent with them having had sex. That does seem pretty damning. I would just like it to have been clarified whether the distribution would have definitely been different if Hanratty's DNA was as a result of contamination.

5. Discussion about the DNA here usually involves the knicker fragment and/or the hanky. Understandably so. However, a third item was also submitted for DNA testing. This was one of Valerie Storie's slips upon which semen was identified immediately after the crime. No result was found from this DNA testing. Given Hanratty's DNA was readily identified on the knicker fragment, why didn't it show up on the slip? As I say, I'm no scientist but might it suggest the DNA on the knicker fragment got there through different means (ie contamination)?

Having assessed the scientific evidence, the Court concluded that the possibility of contamination of the knicker fragment or the hanky was ''fanciful'' and of both ''beyond belief''. However, if you include the slip, only 2 of the 3 items tested are indicators of Hanratty's guilt. If you then doubt the knicker fragment (see particularly points 1 and 3 above re the unestablished AB finding and broken vial), that only leaves the hanky.

6. The hanky. Caz's favourite. Again understandably so. That is very damning. Unless you buy into ideas of police corruption and manipulation of exhibits and evidence, the DNA findings prove that the hanky wrapped around the murder weapon was Hanratty's. Although that leaves extremely serious questions to be answered by Hanratty's remaining supporters, it does not actually prove he fired the gun that killed Gregsten, raped Valerie Storie or even hid the gun and hanky where it was found. We do know others had access to his laundry.


Let me make very clear that none of the above points go any way to suggesting innocence on the part of James Hanratty, let alone proving it which was the aim of those who first campaigned for DNA use. I'm actually as sure as I can be taking everything in the round that Hanratty was guilty. I'm just not as convinced as some that his guilt was proved fairly at trial or that the DNA evidence almost forty years later (inevitably without the safeguards being taken which are now so mandatory) was so unanswerably conclusive.

If things had been very different in a make believe legal world - in particular, Hanratty not being executed and still being alive, the appeal of 2002 being heard many years earlier but with DNA being used years earlier than it was and able to be brought to the appeal - I would have thought it fair and just for Hanratty to have been granted a retrial.

Obviously that could not happen and didn't. I therefore remain uncomfortable that a man - even though I consider him guilty - on trial for his life did not get a fair hearing. This though is where the hypocrite in me comes out. If Michael Gregsten or Valerie Storie had been my son or daughter, hangman Harry Allen could have got any required help from me in an instant.

With apologies for the length and best regards,

OneRound

Hi Alfie - this post of mine at the end of last year attempted to raise various queries about the DNA findings and the Court's 2002 judgement. The first point above was and remains a significant concern for me. It particularly ties in with your post today.

Best regards,

OneRound

[cobalt]

No aplogies required OR.

That was as concise a summary of the concerns about the DNA evidence as one could ever expect to come across. (I appreciate that the controversy over Low Copy DNA was not in your remit.)

I think you have established that the DNA evidence is indicative of Hanratty's guilt, but not actually as conclusive as the CofA seemed to believe.

[Spitfire]

Main aspects for me are as below:

1. As well as Hanratty's DNA (he was a blood group O secretor), the Court also refer to DNA from the semen of an AB blood group secretor being shown to be on the fragment of Valerie Storie's knickers and ''attribute'' that to her lover Michael Gregsten. The Court could of course be right there but, nonetheless, I feel the ''presumption'' (another term used by the Court) should have been thoroughly checked.

Whereas the Court of Appeal said in paragraph 113 of its 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.

The seminal AB stains were found in 1961 on the knickers. As this fact did not find its way into the public evidence at the trial or into any of the subsequent books, folk have assumed that it was only discovered in the late 1990s. My understanding is that the AB staining was known in 1961 and that the fragment of the knickers was taken so that only the O secretor stains were sampled.

[OneRound]

Hi Spitfire - we are still left with only a presumption that the seminal AB stains came from Gregsten and uncertainty as to how and when they got there. I continue to find that unsatisfactory.

Best regards,

OneRound

[Spitfire]

Hi Spitfire - we are still left with only a presumption that the seminal AB stains came from Gregsten and uncertainty as to how and when they got there. I continue to find that unsatisfactory.

Best regards,

OneRound

I am not sure what anyone could have done about it in the Court of Appeal.

The knickers (except the fragment excised therefrom) and the AB stains would have been destroyed after the trial in 1962. Fortunately, the fragment was preserved and the O secretor rapist was shown to be Hanratty.

[moste]

Hi Spitfire - we are still left with only a presumption that the seminal AB stains came from Gregsten and uncertainty as to how and when they got there. I continue to find that unsatisfactory.

Best regards,

OneRound

We don't know, do we, what blood group Gregsten was?
Maybe the AB semen came from the chap that Valerie hung around with when not seeing Mike.
In any event, I think if we could pick the brains of a bona fida, totally impartial, DNA expert, we would be 'set straight' on the usefulness of any and all DNA found in the Pandora's box wherein lay the A6 murders exhibits! regardless of who called for the test.
Again.. the DNA was a means to an end for the establishment and associated authorities to GET the damn monkey off their backs , once and for all. It worked wonderfully.

[Spitfire]

We don't know, do we, what blood group Gregsten was?

Not sure who the “we” are, but anyone who has read paragraph 76 of the judgement of the Court of Appeal knows that Michael Gregsten was group AB.

Maybe the AB semen came from the chap that Valerie hung around with when not seeing Mike.

What unpleasant and unnecessary remark and like most of your comments on this case, one without any foundation in fact.

[OneRound]

I am not sure what anyone could have done about it in the Court of Appeal.

The knickers (except the fragment excised therefrom) and the AB stains would have been destroyed after the trial in 1962. Fortunately, the fragment was preserved and the O secretor rapist was shown to be Hanratty.

Hi again Spitfire - my reading of the Court's 2002 judgement (particularly para 125) is that the AB stains were on the knicker fragment tested in 1997. On that basis, I consider that checks could and should have been carried out to verify the presumption that these stains came from Gregsten.

Whilst I believe the presumption would have been verified, the potential significance was and remains huge. If these stains do not tally with Gregsten, that would be strong evidence of another man or, at the least, contamination and the whole of the DNA case against Hanratty would collapse like a house of cards in a cyclone.

Best regards,

OneRound

[moste]

Whilst I believe the presumption would have been verified, the potential significance was and remains huge. If these stains do not tally with Gregsten, that would be strong evidence of another man or, at the least, contamination and the whole of the DNA case against Hanratty would collapse like a house of cards in a cyclone.

HI OR. Quite well put.

Do you not think though, that if the presumption was verified in the negative, we would not have got to know about it anyway?

[Spitfire]

Hi again Spitfire - my reading of the Court's 2002 judgement (particularly para 125) is that the AB stains were on the knicker fragment tested in 1997. On that basis, I consider that checks could and should have been carried out to verify the presumption that these stains came from Gregsten.

Whilst I believe the presumption would have been verified, the potential significance was and remains huge. If these stains do not tally with Gregsten, that would be strong evidence of another man or, at the least, contamination and the whole of the DNA case against Hanratty would collapse like a house of cards in a cyclone.

Best regards,

OneRound

OR,

You are right. This is what Mr Sweeney QC for the Crown said when addressing the Court of Appeal on 22 April 2002.

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.

I’ve taken the above from Rob Harriman’s book where he gives most of the transcript for the DNA aspect of the appeal.

I am not sure where the “two days” has come from mentioned by Sweeney.

I have had a quick reread of the transcript and Mansfield QC does not seem to make anything of this. But part of the problem in understanding this aspect of the case is that the various expert witnesses have given reports upon which they have been examined and cross examined, and while the questions asked find their way into the transcript, the reports about which they are being asked do not.

It seems therefore that AB group stains were discovered in 1961 and VS would have been asked about these at the time. The Crown and defence at the time were agreed that the seminal stains from the O secretor were those of the rapist/murderer. The AB stains must therefore have been those left by MG.

[Alfie]

Hi OneRound, Spitfire etc

I was less interested in debating the vagaries of DNA testing than I was in discussing the likelihood of Valerie and Gregsten having sex in the Morrie on the evening of the 22nd, and perhaps being caught in flagrante delicto by Hanratty.

Is there a female poster who'd judge it likely that the knickers Valerie was wearing on Tuesday evening were the same ones that she'd donned on Sunday morning, and hadn't washed in the meantime?