A6 Rebooted

[caz]

If the results had been in any way unclear or ambiguous, or incapable of any reliable or conclusive interpretation (for example if Valerie's profile had not shown up or been identifiable, or there had been an unexpected number of profiles in addition to the one matching Hanratty's remains, that could not all be accounted for by the known circumstances) then yes, one could say that the LCN method had proved unreliable in this case.

But that's not what we have here at all. Unless there is evidence to the contrary that we have all missed, the findings matched with the events of that night, according to Valerie's own testimony plus the initial examination of the stains found on her underwear. So once again, I'm asking what evidence you have that the DNA profiles obtained from the hanky and knickers may not have matched Hanratty's remains, while giving all the appearance of doing so. Remember, the contamination theory is based on Hanratty defenders accepting those matches but believing that Hanratty's DNA must have been on both items innocently.

It's like saying "That may not have been our Jim's football that broke Mr. Brown's greenhouse window" long after his doting mum acknowledged that his name was on it in her handwriting, but insisted some other naughty boy must have thrown it.

Have a good weekend.

Love,

Caz
X

[RonIpstone]

Hello Caz,

I think that you had absented yourself from this forum of losers when the BBC Radio 4 made Dickie Ingrams, the doddery former editor of the notorious scandal sheet, Private Eye, editor for the day of its Today program. Ingrams and Paul Foot had obviously become rather thick during their stint together on Lord Gnome's organ, pardon the expression, but that is the sort of phrase they would have used whilst dishing the dirt on the great and the good of this country. For this reason it seemed that Ingrams owed it to Foot to champion the cause of Jim Hanratty, and he did so on the Today program.

To give some topicality to the story it was announced on the radio news that Jim's family were planning a second appeal (in fact any appeal would be a third appeal). The usual nonsense was spouted, blue eyes, id parades, Rhyl, green bath etcetera etcetera by the usual suspects Woffinden, Bindman, Jim's brother and Footy's son. The fly in the ointment of the Hanratty Appreciation Society is the DNA tests which indicated that Jim was the rapist and therefore the murderer. To overcome this a DNA expert was wheeled out who stated that the DNA tests 'might' be inaccurate due to the low copy number procedure. BUT she admitted that she had not seen the test results nor did she know the precise details of the procedures used to obtain the test results. She had not seen the 'DNA file'.

From this we can conclude until it is shown otherwise that no other DNA expert has been instructed by the Hanratty family to challenge the tests which the Court of Appeal admitted in evidence. We also know that the Hanratty team had TWO experts advising them before the appeal, Drs Lincoln and Evison, and the best that they could come up with is that the DNA of Jim Hanratty was admittedly present but that it had got there by contamination. The unanswered question being what had happened to the rapist's DNA on the knickers fragment.

Until this question is dealt with and answered, the Hanratty Appreciation Society is going nowhere with any appeal.

Why the BBC allowed itself to abandon its Reithian principles and allow Ingrams, aided and abetted by Woffinden and Bindman, to insinuate on the radio news that evidence was available to make a further appeal when it clearly was not (nor is now), is something that which also should be answered. The only reasons which I can see were to save (posthumously) Paul Foot's face and to cause further distress to VS.

Ron

[Graham]

Good stuff, Ron.

And the new appeal would be made "early in the New Year", they said. Which 'New Year' would that be, then?

Graham

[caz]

Hi Ron and Graham,

You see, this is what is so puzzling to me. Why aren't the honourable members of the Hanratty Appreciation Society, who post regularly and impotently to this thread, asking themselves why the goods that would warrant a further appeal have never been produced by the very people who claim to want Jim's name cleared? They are either sitting on information that could make a real difference or there is sod all there but piss and wind. The only other option is that they have all had their brains turned to mush by the 'dark side' so they no longer know which way is up.

Love,

Caz
X

[Limehouse]

It is disappointing to see the opposition resorting to childish taunts and put-downs once again.

[Admin]

I am going to remind everyone, once, of the agreement they made to post cordially and without animosity on this thread.

Any further collective insulting of the opposing side either through snide terms, "Hanratty appreciation society", "forum of losers", or any other disparaging remarks aimed at the people who post here will result in permanent revocation of your posting privileges.

It may take us a couple of days to respond to something that has been posted. If something is posted that you find rude and insulting, you are still responsible for your response and your behavior. If you reply in kind, you will likewise be prohibited from posting on this forum. "They started it" is not an acceptable defense. Show respect for the person, even if you do not respect the argument they are making.

A couple of people have already lost privileges. After a month, they are being allowed to return if they choose. That is a one time grant of amnesty. There will be no more. From now on, any revocation of privileges from this subject is permanent.

[Black Rabbit]

Well said Admin

[Natalie Severn]

Well said Admin

Yes-and well said too , Black Rabbit!

[jimarilyn]

I think it is the method - LCN - of analysing the DNA that bothers me

Hi Julie,

It bothers a lot of people. Much impressive stuff has been written about the Low Copy Number method [on the A6 Murder DNA evidence thread] by the likes of Reg1965, Dupplin Muir and JamesDean. It's very revealing and significant (to me at least) that over a decade on from it's inception only three of the world's nations (and there are over two hundred of them) place any credence in this inherently flawed technique. This must speak volumes to any impartial observer.

[Limehouse]

Hi Julie,

It bothers a lot of people. Much impressive stuff has been written about the Low Copy Number method [on the A6 Murder DNA evidence thread] by the likes of Reg1965, Dupplin Muir and JamesDean. It's very revealing and significant (to me at least) that over a decade on from it's inception only three of the world's nations (and there are over two hundred of them) place any credence in this inherently flawed technique. This must speak volumes to any impartial observer.

Hi Jim,

Lovely to see you posting again. Welcome back!

Yes, I think that it is important to remember that the first DNA tests were inconclusive and that these LCN tests were carried out a few years after the original DNA tests. I am not sure about how much control or influence the Hanratty family and legal team had over these second wave of DNA tests but I have a feeling they were not fully conversant with the technique or its reliability.

I am not a scientist, but several contributors are, and some of them believe the real problem is the amount of magification that occurs with these tests.

For me, as I have often stated, the DNA results can do nothing to address the doubts I have concerning the original evidence as presented at the trial.

I am also concerned with the way Hanratty 'appears' to have turned from a housebreaker and car thief into a potential armed robber, rapist and murderer within a few short weeks of bumping into his old mentor, Charles France.

The DNA evidence could never erase the strong feelings I have that there was much more to this crime than has ever been revealed.

[Limehouse]

Please give me references (which are not in the Appeal Ruling of 2002) to where we can all find out how the referential DNA profiles of Valerie Storie, Michael Gregsten and Peter Alphon were obtained.

I believe this is an example of the problems some people have about the reliability of the second wave of DNA tests. As I stated in a recent previous post, the tests were much more complicated than just testing a bit of semen deposit and comparing it with a DNA profile. I believe all the profiles were mixed and then separated out in some way - but a better scientific mind than mine will probably be able to explain it properly!

Must go - very naughty but I'm posting from work.

Julie

[caz]

Hi Limehouse, All,

How many other convictions over the years have been supported with LCN test results? I'd be interested to know how much of your own time, or that of your employer, you have spent trying to right all these other wrongs, if the technique is indeed 'inherently' flawed.

Love,

Caz
X

[Natalie Severn]

Hi Limehouse, All,

How many other convictions over the years have been supported with LCN test results? I'd be interested to know how much of your own time, or that of your employer, you have spent trying to right all these other wrongs, if the technique is indeed 'inherently' flawed.

Love,

Caz
X

Now ,now Caz no snide comments !
Cheers,
Norma
x

[Natalie Severn]

Hi All,
Can anyone tell me how Valerie could possibly have known that the gunman had blue eyes? I have good near vision but like most people have never seen the colour blue in artificial light in darkness.Blue would surely always be a flat grey as would "hazel" or "green" eyes.
Ever heard the expression,"At night all cats are grey?'
Cheers

[caz]

Now ,now Caz no snide comments !

That was nothing to do with you, Nats, and your comment has nothing to do with the subject in hand. I was hardly being 'snide', since Limehouse was honest enough to admit to her dishonesty.

She volunteered this insight into the strength and sincerity of her feelings over this particular case, which is why I asked about other similar cases and what she does about those.

Love,

Caz
X