A6 Rebooted

[Limehouse]

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

Hi Caz

Not many cases have had to rely onm LCN as few cases have such old and degraded samples. Also - in many other cases - there is far more reliable 'other evidence' to draw on. This was a case with very few actual witnesses to the crime itself and almost no forensic evidence such as finger prints or hairs or fibres left by the criminal at the scene. Only the semen was left and that had degraded considerably by the time any DNA tests could be carried out.

Don't worry - my employer gets really good value for money out of me. I am paid for four days work (29.5 hours) and I often do nearly twice that. I rarely take lunch breaks and often log in to my work computer and work even when I am at home.

PS - I am at home now.

Julie

[caz]

Nats, isn't it enough that Valerie believed her attacker had blue eyes? When she clapped her eyes on the second police suspect - who had blue eyes, not hazel, green or brown - and heard his voice, she was 100% certain that this man had raped and shot her, and forty years later his semen was still on her knickers and his mucous on the hanky wrapped round the murder weapon.

We go round in circles here, with a handful of people claiming this evidence is weak as water, while the rest find it as safe as houses.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Don't worry - my employer gets really good value for money out of me. I am paid for four days work (29.5 hours) and I often do nearly twice that. I rarely take lunch breaks and often log in to my work computer and work even when I am at home.

I never really doubted it, Limehouse. But you did describe posting from work as 'very naughty'. Now that was doing yourself an injustice.

Love,

Caz
X

[Limehouse]

Nats, isn't it enough that Valerie believed her attacker had blue eyes? When she clapped her eyes on the second police suspect - who had blue eyes, not hazel, green or brown - and heard his voice, she was 100% certain that this man had raped and shot her, and forty years later his semen was still on her knickers and his mucous on the hanky wrapped round the murder weapon.

We go round in circles here, with a handful of people claiming this evidence is weak as water, while the rest find it as safe as houses.

Love,

Caz
X

I believe that the DNA tests could not have shown that the Hanratty profile on the knickers was most definitely from semen. It seems that the LCN process cannot identify the source material for the DNA profile.

In the case of the hanky - again - the DNA tests could not have determined the DNA profile came from mucous. Additionally - Hanratty's hanky wrapped round the gun does not make him the culprit. The gun and hanky were miles from the scene of crime and were found days later. Anyone could have incriminated Hanratty by placing his hanky with the murder weapon.

I would argue that - given there was no forensic evidence left in the car (fibres - hairs - skin cells - semen) and that the gun was found wrapped in Hanratty's 'signature' hanky (his MO) in a place that he had admitted to hiding loot - and given that the cartridges ended up in a room he had occupied (weeks afterthe crime) the evidence is contrived to say the least. As I have previously mentioned - Hanratty's escalation from thief to psychotic master criminal in the few short weeks following his re-introduction to Charles France is astonishing.

Julie

PS - please everyone - for the sake of the survival of this thread - let's keep it civilised.

[caz]

Hi again Limehouse,

Semen that had 'degraded' considerably, or just a very tiny trace of it?

And you never did address the question (unless I missed it) of which is better:

Someone else's semen wrongly identified as Hanratty's?

Or semen reliably identified as Hanratty's but there by accident, and no trace of the rapist's?

In the immortal words of Harry Hill, there's only one way to find out - "Fight!"

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Only the semen was left and that had degraded considerably by the time any DNA tests could be carried out.

Our posts crossed, but I'm confused now by your latest posts. Do you believe there was degraded semen left to test or not?

What else could have been the source of the DNA identified as Hanratty's on the knickers and hanky, if not semen and mucous respectively? Back in 1961 they had no difficulty identifying the source of the staining on each item, and only one profile was eventually picked up on the hanky, which matched one of those on the knickers and Hanratty's bodily remains.

Even those who favour the contamination theory rely on semen from Hanratty's trousers finding its wicked way onto the knickers during storage and/or handling.

There is zero evidence and no reason for the source being anything other than seminal fluid.

Love,

Caz
X

[Natalie Severn]

Caz asked:
Nats, isn't it enough that Valerie believed her attacker had blue eyes?[/I]
No Caz,its not enough to believe evidence needs not to be guess + wish .Valerie could not possibly have determined the colour blue in the headlights of a passing vehicle at night.


Caz :When she clapped her eyes on the second police suspect - who had blue eyes, not hazel, green or brown - and heard his voice, she was 100% certain that this man had raped and shot her,

Hold your horses Caz! Only a few weeks previously Valerie had been 100% certain her rapist was a man named Michael Clark who was simply a volunteer in the line up -and who apparently had dark eyes-
and her "identification" of Hanratty took her 20 minutes---rather a long long time for an instant recognition -----and five words uttered by a young male Cockney speaker would ,to the ears of most non-Cockney speakers ,sound much like any other five words uttered by any other young male Cockney speaker.


Caz added :and forty years later his semen was still on her knickers and his mucous on the hanky wrapped round the murder weapon.

Well the issue of contamination was acknowledged as a possibility for this.It was also a fact that the knickers were produced at the committal intact ,along with Hanratty"s trousers,his hanky and his intimate samples and other exhibits.They were taken out of their boxes each day and put on a table.Nobody was likely to have worn gloves as they handled the exhibits which,it was agreed could have also included the vial that was thought to contain a wash of semen from the trousers [the vial was later found broken as you know in the same file as the knicker piece] All exhibits were produced at the committal.

Normax

[Limehouse]

Our posts crossed, but I'm confused now by your latest posts. Do you believe there was degraded semen left to test or not?

What else could have been the source of the DNA identified as Hanratty's on the knickers and hanky, if not semen and mucous respectively? Back in 1961 they had no difficulty identifying the source of the staining on each item, and only one profile was eventually picked up on the hanky, which matched one of those on the knickers and Hanratty's bodily remains.

Even those who favour the contamination theory rely on semen from Hanratty's trousers finding its wicked way onto the knickers during storage and/or handling.

There is zero evidence and no reason for the source being anything other than seminal fluid.

Love,

Caz
X

Let's leave the hanky out of it because even though it is in all possibility Hanratty's - there is not absolute proof that he placed it round the gun and desposited the gun on the bus. The gun carried no finger prints or skin fragments or fibres to link it to Hanratty. No one saw Hanratty dispose of the gun. No one has explained how Hanratty obtained the gun.

Certainly two semen stains were identified on the whole knicker item in 1961. Certainly these semen stains revealed each deposit was from different men. However - the whole knicker fragment did not survive (or was not kept) to be examined forty or so years later. When the first DNA tests were done - I believe no reliable profiles were obtained. A few years later - using LCN - three profiles were identified - but as far as I can understand it - there is no way of determining from which substance the DNA profiles came. So - there are three genetic profiles - Valeries - Gregsten's and Hanratty's but it is not possible to tell that Gregsten's profile comes from semen or that Hanratty's profile comes from semen. They could equally have come from sweat or from skin cells so they could stem from contamination.

It is not necessarily the case that the real rapist's DNA disappeared. It may not have been on the surviving fragment of knicker that was tested. It may have degraded so that it was not possible to obtain a profile (as it was the case in the first batch of tests). It is well established that the DNA remaining was degraded and existed only in small amounts thus the LCN testing being necessary.

I repeat - as far as I can understand what I have read - the DNA profile need not have come from semen and the LCN test could not determine that the profile was semen (and therefore - I think - could not tell Gregsten's semen from Hanratty's or any other person'e that may have been desposited).

Incidently - if you want to pursue the 'how did the real rapist's profile disappear from the knickers' line - then how did the real rapist's presence disappear from the car? Valerie removed her knickers before being raped. Why was no sign of the rapist's semen found in the car? Why were no fibres from the car found on Hanratty's clothes? Not a skin cell or a hair or a drop of anything. Why? Why was it so important that not a speck of Hanratty was found in the car - but he was so careless as to leave behind two cartridge cases from the murder weapon in his hotel room?

[Victor]

Let's leave the hanky out of it because even though it is in all possibility Hanratty's - there is not absolute proof that he placed it round the gun and desposited the gun on the bus. The gun carried no finger prints or skin fragments or fibres to link it to Hanratty. No one saw Hanratty dispose of the gun. No one has explained how Hanratty obtained the gun.

Hi Julie,

Surely that means that the gunman was someone known to Hanratty then - if it wasn't him then it must have been planted by someone who had access to his dirty laundry and the murder weapon.

but as far as I can understand it - there is no way of determining from which substance the DNA profiles came.

The one exception is semen, specifically sperm heads, they can be seperated from other material and tested seperately.

[...]it is not possible to tell that Gregsten's profile comes from semen or that Hanratty's profile comes from semen. They could equally have come from sweat or from skin cells so they could stem from contamination.

Without knowing the exact tests performed then that can't be confirmed.

Incidently - if you want to pursue the 'how did the real rapist's profile disappear from the knickers' line - then how did the real rapist's presence disappear from the car?

Again, not entirely true - there were 11 sets of fingerprints in the car, and these may have obliterated those from Hanratty. Fibre evidence 50 years ago was limited, and why should the gunman have bled in the car?

Why was no sign of the rapist's semen found in the car?

It might not have leaked into the car.

Why were no fibres from the car found on Hanratty's clothes?

You mean the jacket he dumped in Stanmore?

Not a skin cell or a hair or a drop of anything. Why? Why was it so important that not a speck of Hanratty was found in the car - but he was so careless as to leave behind two cartridge cases from the murder weapon in his hotel room?

Perhaps because the cartridge cases are not insubstantial smears that could be wiped out.

KR,
Vic.

[Limehouse]

Hi Julie,

You mean the jacket he dumped in Stanmore?

KR,
Vic.

Yes - the jacket that he was seen wearing AFTER the A6 incident - blood free - and which he abandoned in Stanmore after he ripped it in a burglary.

The trousers (more likely to have carreid fribres from the car than the jacket as the gunman is said to have placed the travel blanket over the driver's seat) were given up for forensic testing.

I believe scientists disagree over whether it's possible to identify semen as a source of DNA.

As for no semen in the car -VS and her attacker had non-consensual intercourse on the back seat of a car. Before the attacke VS removed - yes removed - her knickers. It is hard to imagine there was no leakage on to the car seats.

Nice to see you back posting.

[Victor]

Yes - the jacket that he was seen wearing AFTER the A6 incident - blood free - and which he abandoned in Stanmore after he ripped it in a burglary.

Hi Julie,

It was still a jacket that was not subject to any close examination, so could have had fibres or hairs or specks of blood on it without anyone noticing. And the trousers had been cleaned before the forensics team got their hands on them.

I believe scientists disagree over whether it's possible to identify semen as a source of DNA.

It categorically is possible to seperate sperm heads from other sources of DNA, but it is a technique that needs to be used, and the results given do not make any mention of methodology whatsoever. Bindman\Woffinden have the results though, and they aren't saying.

As for no semen in the car -VS and her attacker had non-consensual intercourse on the back seat of a car. Before the attacke VS removed - yes removed - her knickers. It is hard to imagine there was no leakage on to the car seats.

Yes VS removed her knickers but replaced them straight afterwards, so it's entirely possible no leakage occurred. There are also other possibilities revolving around the fluids that Valerie herself released, which may have been minimal (due to the non-consensual factor) and therefore not causing the semen to leak out before the knickers were replaced.

Nice to see you back posting.

Thank you.

KR,
Vic.

[RonIpstone]

Vic, some good points there, if I might say so in non-snide, non-confrontational, respectful manner but at the considerable risk of upsetting your sensitivities, I feel I must point out that you are avoiding and ignoring the big point, to wit James Hanratty could not have committed the crimes as he was incapable of such beastliness. Once you have grasped that undoubted and incontrovertible truth all else falls into place and you will see that James Hanratty was wrongly convicted and executed for the A6 murder.

James, the eldest of James senior and Mary (nee Wilson) Hanratty’s children, was born in Orpington Kent on 4 October 1936 and therefore by the conventions of the 1960’s would have achieved man’s estate on 3 October 1957. We should judge Hanratty as a man. At the date of the A6 murder James was aged 24 years 10 months, in the 3 years 10 months since James attained his majority he had been at liberty for an impressive 6 months. During this period he had committed no criminal act of violence, more specifically, he had not abducted any courting couple in a Morris Minor, or indeed in any other small runabout of the period. How credible is it therefore, that James should put at risk his good reputation so sedulously acquired over this six month period by embarking on the mad-cap adventures of the night of the 22/23 August 1961?

Further to the same point, how could it be James who committed the murder and the rape when James’s seminal stains were not detected in the interior of the Morris Minor? And further James was the blue eyed boy both literally and metaphorically. We all know that the police’s initial broadcast of the description of the murderer was that he had brown eyes, not the deep, dreamy blue eyes of James Hanratty. This description was changed by 31 August to blue eyes. It is laughable to say that a policeman had made an error in taking a note, writing ‘bl’ for blue but reading back the note as ‘br’ for brown. More likely, I say more likely, but really should say it is an undoubted fact that Ms Storie first said brown eyes but only changed her description to blue eyes after being visited by Janet Gregsten, widow of Michael, in hospital.

Vic, in view of the foregoing, James, who sent his doting mother flowers on her birthday, who treated all women with respect and cordiality as a gentleman should, who always stood up when a lady entered the room and also when the National Anthem was played, who gave generously to charity, how could he commit these heinous crimes? James Hanratty was a philanthropist and gentleman, not a murderer and rapist.

Vic, once you have grasped this then all else falls into place. James undoubtedly stayed in Rhyl, or some other seaside resort, on the night of 22/23 August 1961, in Mrs Jones’s lodging house, or some other accommodation or indeed slept rough or aimlessly walked the streets asking for accommodation from an assortment of inhabitants, with or without large dogs, of the North Wales coast.

[jimarilyn]

You're only saying that 'cos it's true Ronnie.

[Victor]

Hi Ron,

What about Jim's expressed desire to progress from housebreaking and car hijacking to gun crime? Very few people stick to their current role and have no desire to advance their chosen profession.

KR,
Vic

[caz]

Ron, you had me in tears. The man was innocent!

I jest.

Caz asked:
Nats, isn't it enough that Valerie believed her attacker had blue eyes?[/i]
No Caz,its not enough to believe evidence needs not to be guess + wish .Valerie could not possibly have determined the colour blue in the headlights of a passing vehicle at night.

Yeah, thanks for separating my question from the next bit of my post, explaining exactly why I was asking. You rightly detest it when anyone does the same to your posts, to disrupt the flow of one of your arguments.

Caz :When she clapped her eyes on the second police suspect - who had blue eyes, not hazel, green or brown - and heard his voice, she was 100% certain that this man had raped and shot her,

Hold your horses Caz! Only a few weeks previously Valerie had been 100% certain her rapist was a man named Michael Clark who was simply a volunteer in the line up -and who apparently had dark eyes-
and her "identification" of Hanratty took her 20 minutes---rather a long long time for an instant recognition -----and five words uttered by a young male Cockney speaker would ,to the ears of most non-Cockney speakers ,sound much like any other five words uttered by any other young male Cockney speaker.

Hold your horses, Nats! Show me where Valerie says she was "100% certain" about that volunteer? She couldn't have been, could she? So why put words in her mouth on top of everything else she has had to endure? She has remained 100% certain about Hanratty since the day she was confronted with him during the second line-up. If you doubt that, you are doubting her word, but arguing for something she never claimed. Why would you do that? What is it about her word that you don't trust, while trusting anyone from Rhyl, with their months-old recollections of the kind of incident that was commonplace and instantly forgettable?

Caz added :and forty years later his semen was still on her knickers and his mucous on the hanky wrapped round the murder weapon.

Well the issue of contamination was acknowledged as a possibility for this.It was also a fact that the knickers were produced at the committal intact ,along with Hanratty"s trousers,his hanky and his intimate samples and other exhibits.They were taken out of their boxes each day and put on a table.Nobody was likely to have worn gloves as they handled the exhibits which,it was agreed could have also included the vial that was thought to contain a wash of semen from the trousers [the vial was later found broken as you know in the same file as the knicker piece] All exhibits were produced at the committal.

We've been through all this. Where is the evidence that the fragment of underwear that yielded Hanratty's DNA was ever produced as an exhibit? The fact is, there is no evidence of anyone else's DNA contaminating either the knicker fragment or hanky from that day to this, which completely undermines the idea that either was ever subjected to the kind of careless, gloveless handling and mingling that you describe.

You too have to decide between two mutually exclusive positions: do you believe the DNA findings were clear and unambiguous because they were engineered that way? If so, any manhandling or mingling of the evidence prior to testing should be wholly irrelevant to your argument. Or do you believe the findings reflect the evidence being contaminated in the way you describe? How would you explain only one person's DNA turning up on the hanky, for example, and only three on the knicker fragment, with one in each case matching the bodily remains of the convicted man, if all this cross-contamination had been allowed to take place? Why didn't it produce instead a chaotic mess of unknown, unidentifiable and unattributable profiles? Do you see the contradiction here?

Also, by embracing the contamination theory, you must be accepting that they reliably identified and matched DNA from knickers and hanky with Hanratty's remains. Again, this picture doesn't fit with engineering results to suit, or with your impossible mish-mash of profiles to disentangle, identify and interpret.

If you want to help Hanratty, you first have to help your arguments to some kind of consistency and logic. So how do you explain the DNA results if events unfolded as you believe they did? No ifs or maybes this time, no mutually exclusive arguments; just one explanation that fits all.

Let's leave the hanky out of it...

No, let's not. It's rather crucial, don't you think, if the only DNA obtained from it was a match to DNA obtained from Hanratty's remains - and the knicker fragment, thereby confirming the identification beyond reasonable doubt (if not how his DNA came to be on either item).

Incidently - if you want to pursue the 'how did the real rapist's profile disappear from the knickers' line - then how did the real rapist's presence disappear from the car? Valerie removed her knickers before being raped. Why was no sign of the rapist's semen found in the car? Why were no fibres from the car found on Hanratty's clothes? Not a skin cell or a hair or a drop of anything. Why? Why was it so important that not a speck of Hanratty was found in the car - but he was so careless as to leave behind two cartridge cases from the murder weapon in his hotel room?

I don't see how your question follows logically from the first. The first is based on the circular argument that Hanratty wasn't the real rapist, therefore the real rapist's semen somehow managed to escape the keen eye of the DNA testing - for whatever reason. According to Valerie and the same DNA testing, Hanratty was the real rapist which would mean it didn't escape at all!

The second question comes from a simple truth: no semen from the rapist was found in the car - whoever he was. Assuming he ejaculated inside Valerie, his semen may well have been contained until she was able to put her knickers back on. No huge problem there, but there is if you are suggesting the 'real rapist' (or someone protecting him) got his toothbrush out and removed every last trace of semen from the car interior! It didn't happen. Yet the evidence that did survive is consistent with a fully ejaculating, semen producing rapist; not a phantom or a "jaffa".

I could turn this lack of forensics in the car right round and ask why the police didn't simply plant some, once they had a "likely suspect" in their hands, if you believe they were desperate and capable enough of oiling the wheels. If you still believe semen would have been present and recoverable from the car, who or what do you blame for none being found?

Love,

Caz
X