A6 Rebooted

[caz]

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

[cobalt]

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I understand that ‘the slips’ could be a historical reference to the slips that existed prior to 1962, but am not clear why this ambiguity would have been introduced into their wording so many years later.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.

[NickB]

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.

[Derrick]

...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

[NickB]

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.

[moste]

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.

[moste]

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.

[Derrick]

...You have said Lincoln left (in 1997?) because he did not regard LCN to be a valid system...

Patrick Lincoln gave up his position as scientific advisor to the Hanratty family in late 2001. Dr Martin Evison wasn't employed by the appellants until February 2002 just 2 months before the appeal hearing. He oversaw no DNA testing and was poorly prepared for giving "expert testimony". He was ripped to pieces by Nigel Sweeney.

[NickB]

Thanks Derrick. So Lincoln was there throughout the testing, including when the results were presented to Bindman.

On 3-Apr-01 Bindman gave his reaction to the press on the results and raised the contamination theory.

I cannot find any statement from Lincoln about the case after he left it. I seem to recall another poster suggesting that he left because his advice was that the DNA proved Hanratty's guilt; the appellant was then left with a mad scramble to find someone who would support the contamination theory that Bindman had suggested.

[cobalt]

From the 2002 Appeal:

Evidence based upon the comparison of hairs and fibres was inconclusive.

These presumably came from the interior of the Morris Minor and from Valerie Storie’s clothing. Yet Hanratty’s hair, which was described by the appeal as ‘auburn’ had been died black on August 5^th according to Dixie France’s daughter, a trainee hairdresser.

Hanratty did this to make himself ‘less conspicuous’ but as was often the case with him, the concept had not been thought through. His hair became highly conspicuous and its unique colour blend as good as a fingerprint. I would suggest that a trainee lab technician would have had little trouble matching a single strand of Hanratty’s multi-coloured barnet. On that basis I have to assume that either James Hanratty managed to leave not a single hair follicle behind after a murder and rape inside the car, or that he was never there in the first place.

Maybe time for another search of the police basement to see if some hair and fibres have been left behind so as we can put the matter to rest.

[Spitfire]

I cannot find any statement from Lincoln about the case after he left it. I seem to recall another poster suggesting that he left because his advice was that the DNA proved Hanratty's guilt; the appellant was then left with a mad scramble to find someone who would support the contamination theory that Bindman had suggested.

Hello Nick

I think I was the poster who suggested that Lincoln was replaced by Evison because Lincoln's evidence was not helpful to Hanratty's case.

Since making that suggestion I have read Rob Harriman's book which has most of the evidence in the Court of Appeal relating to the DNA aspect of the case. Dr Evison was questioned by the Crown's QC, Mr Sweeney, as to why he, Evison, was giving evidence not Dr Lincoln. The reason given by Dr Evison was that Dr Lincoln had retired and was unable to devote the necessary time to Hanratty's case.

[NickB]

Thanks Spitfire. It was also suggested by poster RonIpstone. I don't know if the retirement completely explains it; some people would want to see out an important case that they have been working on which was about to come to fruition and which someone else would have difficulty taking up.

The Appeal judgement said: “The DNA evidence made what was a strong case even stronger.” So even if you could discredit the DNA results now and make them inconclusive, all this does is revert matters to the non-DNA ‘strong case’ and the appeal is still lost.

Without any significant new non-DNA evidence the Appellant's only path to winning was if the DNA exonerated Hanrattty. The Respondent would win if it was inconclusive and double-win if it was positive.

[OneRound]

Thanks Spitfire. It was also suggested by poster RonIpstone. I don't know if the retirement completely explains it; some people would want to see out an important case that they have been working on which was about to come to fruition and which someone else would have difficulty taking up.

The Appeal judgement said: “The DNA evidence made what was a strong case even stronger.” So even if you could discredit the DNA results now and make them inconclusive, all this does is revert matters to the non-DNA ‘strong case’ and the appeal is still lost.

Without any significant new non-DNA evidence the Appellant's only path to winning was if the DNA exonerated Hanrattty. The Respondent would win if it was inconclusive and double-win if it was positive.

Hi Nick - like it or not (and I don't but hey ho), that was a remarkably canny judgement and choice of words by the Court of Appeal. It very effectively closed and bolted the door on any possible future appeal.

It counts for nothing but Hanratty and his supporters were unlucky - not for the first time - as regards the three Appeal Court judges who ruled on the case in 2002. I suspect some other Appeal Court judges might have been less convinced that guilt had been fully and fairly proven. By way of contrast, I have referred previously to the successful posthumous appeals in 2003 of George Kelly and Charles Connolly for the Cameo Murders. All the more surprising and to the Court of Appeal's credit for taking everything into the mix in the case of Connolly even though he had pleaded guilty at his retrial.

Best regards,
OneRound

[NickB]

Derek Bentley and Mahmood Mattan also had their convictions quashed after having been hanged for murder.

But in the A6 case the appellant had no significant new evidence. The grounds of appeal were based on saying that certain practices, mostly concerned with police disclosure, should not have been allowed.

Although many rules had been made more advantageous for the defendant other rules had been made less advantageous - most notably in this case the rules about an ambush alibi. So neither side can assert that the rules 40 years later should have been applied, you have to go back to what applied at the time.

Thus the refrain: ‘Although this would be disclosable by present standards it is far from clear that it fell to be disclosed by the standards of the day’.

Even so the matters arising out of each of the grounds of appeal were considered and all of them were rejected. Sometimes in considering a ground of appeal information was discovered that counted against Hanratty - for example, when the appellant asserted it was not disclosed that the bus for Rhyl left Liverpool at 6pm.

[cobalt]

The statement ‘has made a strong case stronger’ is clearly hogwash. A case would not be considered for appeal unless there were some doubts about the initial verdict; strong cases are not sent for appeal.

Lord Lane, as he later became, was junior crown prosecution at the trial of James Hanratty. He spouted much the same nonsense after rejecting an appeal in 1988.
"As has happened before in References by the Home Secretary to this court, the longer this hearing has gone on the more convinced this court has become that the verdict of the jury was correct."

That was Lord Lane’s rejection of the right to appeal in the case of the Birmingham Six.