A6 Rebooted

[Natalie Severn]

Yet at the same time all the hundreds of flakes of DNA from the actual rapist contained in the mass of semen contained in an ejaculate were all somehow erased and not magnified even once to provide anyone else's DNA profile?

How strange. Hanratty must have had one hell of a superhuman flake of DNA on that alleged wash from allegedly his trousers!

Not at all strange Jen.The cloth was massively degraded-had been handled by numbers of others whose DNA had also vanished due,one would expect to its degraded state.But when it was kept in the drawer---and this was acknowledged to have been a situation where contamination could have happened,a broken vial ,whose rubber bung had come free, was found among the items in the drawer.The vial is thought to have contained a semen wash which could have penetrated parts of the paper envelopes[the outer one had come apart] that the knicker fragment was in.The vial did not contain hairs---these were kept in glass slides which were also found in the drawer.

And you just go on asking questions.How come all the DNA from these other folk had disappeared? How come when the very problem with LCN DNA testing is that it multiplies rapidly.JUst two countries apart from ourselves use it because it is so controversial.It is not allowed for such useas was made of it for the appeal ruling in other European courts.

[babybird67]

Not at all strange Jen.The cloth was massively degraded

Evidence?

-had been handled by numbers of others whose DNA had also vanished due,

Evidence?

But when it was kept in the drawer---and this was acknowledged to have been a situation where contamination could have happened

This was considered a possibility by both sides of the debate during the Appeal. Possibility does not mean that there is any evidence of it, which there is not.

a broken vial ,whose rubber bung had come free, was found among the items in the drawer.The vial is thought to have contained a semen wash

Thought by whom? Those involved said it would be very unlikely that anything of a liquid nature woud be kept in such a manner. They stated it was much more likely it contained a hair or fibre sample. This is further corroborated by the fact that the vial was found contained within several layers of packaging, NONE of which showed any sign of water damage, which would be impossible had they contained a broken vial of wash.

which could have penetrated parts of the paper envelopes[the outer one had come apart] that the knicker fragment was in.

It's my understanding that they were not kept together but I admit I am hazy on this so if you have any evidence which proves me wrong I'd be happy to read it.

The vial did not contain hairs

You can't state that because nobody knows what was in the vial.

And you just go on asking questions.How come all the DNA from these other folk had disappeared?

What other folk? One or two flakes from someone picking it up does not equate to the billions of cells found within the entire ejaculate of a male which is left behind after sex!

How come when the very problem with LCN DNA testing is that it multiplies rapidly.

You still haven't explained why one or two rogue flakes from Hanratty would have multiplied into being enough to be msitaken for the rapist's ejaculate, yet ALL the billions of flakes within the actual rapist's ejaculate, which according to YOUR OWN theory of even one flake being multiplied, would have ALSO been subject to the same process, didn't only NOT multiply, but were effectively totally erased! It doesn't make sense at all.

JUst two countries apart from ourselves use it because it is so controversial.

And? Are you unhappy the UK is a world leader in this regard? Do you think all forensic progression should be halted on the basis that the person/country first to use it would be alone? Maybe nobody should have developed fingerprinting either?

[julie q]

Many thanks for the interesting response to my post concerning Peter Alphon.
I have been unable to ascertain whether or not a more 'official sample 'was ever obtained from him for DNA analysis.
At the court of appeal after Michael Mansefield made what I believe was a faux pas in accepting that the DNA evidence exonerated him this was not mentioned again
Norma has again raised the Mathews report and questions whether it contained anything that is still suppressed ,I believe the answer to this is no,I think the reason is rather more simple.
In 1994 Bob Woffinden and Geoffery Bindmand sent a submission on the case to the Home Office ,in it they lodged a complaint that their efforts to compile it had been frustrated by being refused access to Scotland Yard's documentation on the case. After almost 2 years they were informed that they would address this complaint by asking Scotland Yard to appoint a senior officer to carry out a comprehensive review of the documentation held by them.By end of 1996 Superintendet Mathews had completed his report
and this together with Home Office report was presented to the Then Home Secretary M Howard. Both reports had recomended that the case be referred to the appeal court as a possible misscarriage of justice.Instead M Howard took the step of refering the case to newly formed crimminal case review commision,with all referrences to the Mathews report deleted.In essence the CCRC had start again some 3 years work had been lost.If the Mathews report reccomendation had been adhered to and the case gone to appeal at this juncture both Accot and Oxford would have been called as witnesses.By the time case did go to court 6 years later and 8 years after the orginal sumbmission they were both dead.I believe it was simply stalling for time that was the real motive behind the suppression of the Mathews report .At the appeal court much was made of the fact that aspertions were being cast on the integrity of the 2 officers who were not in a postion to explain their actions .

In many respects the CCRC investigation superseded the Mathews report ,the commisioner B Skitt, himself a former chief constable ,had access to all the documentation and the authority to interview surviving witnesses Including Oxford ,Accott, and Valerie Storie . By the end of 1998 the commissions report had concluded that the case should be referred to the court of appeal as a possible misscariage of justice ,the the second report commisioned by the home office to do so.
In march 1999 the Home office finally agreed that case should be referred,but is was to take a further 3 years and the death of Oxford and Accot before it reached court.

Valerie Storie was still in a postion to be called as a witness to the court of appeal and many have questioned why she was not .Miss Storie has always refused to cooperate with those wishing to research the case,this was her perogative and perfectly understandable,however she also made it clear that she would never appear at a public enquirey or an appeal court hearing even on being charged with contempt of court,she had given her evidence at Bedford and as far as she was concerned that was the end of the matter .

After the appeal court hearing Miss Storie did give a long interview to Mail on Sunday published on 5th and 12th May 2002.At the interview, which was conducted in her home , 2 senior officers from Sotland Yard were present.How many victims of a 40 year old crime could call on the services of senior police officers to assist them in a press interview.
To her credit Miss Storie donated the fee she recieved to charity

Re William Ewer, the national archives at kew have a file on him, it relates to an interview with the police in 1973 in connection with the article that
appeared in the Times . I made a formal request this week to view the doucument and was informed that is a closed file not open to public inspection.

many regards Julie q

[Natalie Severn]

Jen,just taking your very first one word request,'evidence?' about the degraded piece of cloth----do you not realise that this was why they were forced to use low copy number DNA testing?
regarding your second one word request,'evidence'----I illustrated several times just today that the piece of cloth along with the trousers and Hanratty's intimate samples, was handled at Ampthill,daily by police and others.It had also been handled at the hospital by nurses and by the pathologists in 1961 .Apart from that we have no knowledge of its evidential history until it was discovered in 1991 after 30 years in a drawer.God knows who had 'handled ' it over the many years it was there.Nobody knows.Its all pure speculation as was and is so much to do with the trial and subsequent appeals.Baseless , frankly disgraceful ,speculation.

Nite Nite,
Norma

[Natalie Severn]

Just caught Julie q's post.Again,so instructive.The mystery of Mr William Ewer!

[and Charles France].
Thankyou for the information about the Matthews report.Have you ever had sight of it Julie?

[babybird67]

Jen,just taking your very first one word request,'evidence?' about the degraded piece of cloth----do you not realise that this was why they were forced to use low copy number DNA testing?

With respect, Nats, you did not say 'degraded'. What you said was 'massively degraded' as if this somehow meant no decent test could be done on it. Of course there was some degradation. Not enough to make the results meaningless though.

regarding your second one word request,'evidence'----I illustrated several times just today that the piece of cloth along with the trousers and Hanratty's intimate samples, was handled at Ampthill,daily by police and others.It had also been handled at the hospital by nurses and by the pathologists in 1961 .

Again, with respect, no you haven't. Just because the exhibits were produced in court does not mean they were handled in the sense that you are alleging.

From article 115 of the Appeal Judgement:

All the exhibits, including those mentioned, were produced at the committal proceedings which took place between 22 November 1961 and 5 December 1961. If the usual procedures of the time were followed it would seem doubtful that any one of the exhibits, barring possibly the gun and certain of the cartridges, would ever have been removed from its packaging or container.

Although forensics then was not as developed as it is now, procedures were in place regarding the handling of exhibits. It is extremely doubtful that they were handed around willy nilly being handled by all and sundry. To further evidence that this was not the case, there is the total absence of anybody else's DNA on either the knickers or the handkerchief, especially since one of your concerns about LCN is that is multiplies even one tiny speck of DNA. To argue that, and also to argue not only that everybody else's DNA other than Hanratty's must have just disappeared, including the (what must be) billions of specks of DNA contained in the entire ejaculate of the rapist, spreading five inches up Valerie's knickers, all just somehow got wiped out, using a process you wish to argue multiplies it, is just illogical and inconsistent, and, I would argue, scientifically impossible.

Apart from that we have no knowledge of its evidential history until it was discovered in 1991 after 30 years in a drawer.

We know it was covered in the rapist's semen, since it was covered in that from the time the rape was committed. Unless you wish to argue someone took it out of the drawer and washed it?

God knows who had 'handled ' it over the many years it was there.

There is no evidence anybody did, since one would expect somebody's DNA to be on it if this had been the case.

Nobody knows.Its all pure speculation as was and is so much to do with the trial and subsequent appeals.Baseless , frankly disgraceful ,speculation.

Nite Nite,
Norma

Speculation such as, Aphon seemed like a bit of a queer fish so he must be guilty? Speculation like Leonard Cohen wrote a song which proves William Ewer must be a murderer because he is the one who 'gained' Janet Gregsten out of the crime?

[Natalie Severn]

Hi Jen,

[QUOTE=babybird67;177728]
Baby bird said:
With respect, Nats, you did not say 'degraded'. What you said was 'massively degraded' as if this somehow meant no decent test could be done on it. Of course there was some degradation. Not enough to make the results meaningless though.

Natalie replied:

No ,it was so degraded they could not carry out ordinary DNA testing and had to use LCN DNA testing which is not allowed to be used for evidence in any other countries except ours Sweden and the Netherlands.
Can you think why this should be so?


Babybird said:
Again, with respect, no you haven't. Just because the exhibits were produced in court does not mean they were handled in the sense that you are alleging.

Natalie replied:

I pointedly did not refer solely to what happened in Ampthill during those ten days.
The items were first examined by two pathologists on 23rd August 1961.

Regarding Ampthill,the exhibits were handled by police daily at the court when they put them on the table. I attended a murder trial once in Chester and all the photos and the exhibits were passed round for each member of the jury to look at and handle, in so far as they passed them to the next person.
Valerie Storie was taken to hospital in an ambulance where her clothing was removed,presumably by nurses.The underclothing was given to police to give to the first pathologists to examine at Bedford lab.It was next taken by police to Ampthill where it was put on display each day for ten days by court attendants and each day returned to the police van.
Later ,in late December 1961 ,the items of clothing were re-examined the day after Hanratty's trousers had been excised of semen.
Picture this:
A bench to place the exhibits and a table to place them on.A scraping off of semen to put in a vessel to be made into a wash.
The cleaner arrived the following day,brushes the floor wipes the bench the trousers were placed on and off of.
Next day, the knickers and the slips arrive. They are placed on the bench where the trousers were the day before.A residual dried fluid is scraped clear of the 'stains'.Pieces from the crotch are cut from the knickers and the back of the slip [ from the crotch area and not from 5 inch up the back of the knickers please note]
Semen from Gregsten and 'another' are discovered and tested for blood group.

We are not told who bagged these up for the police but assume it was the pathologist himself.

The piece of cloth was then kept for thirty years in non sterile conditions for DNA testing at a police lab.It was contained in two paper envelopes ,the outer one of which had come loose at the joins.
The cloth was taken out by more pathologists and was tested in 1998[I don't have books with me and can't check the exact date of this].

DNA could not be interpreted by conventional DNA testing because it had degraded so overwhelmingly


Babybird said:
"one of your concerns about LCN is that is multiplies even one tiny speck of DNA. To argue that, and also to argue not only that everybody else's DNA other than Hanratty's must have just disappeared, including the (what must be) billions of specks of DNA contained in the entire ejaculate of the rapist, spreading five inches up Valerie's knickers, all just somehow got wiped out, using a process you wish to argue multiplies it, is just illogical and inconsistent, and, I would argue, scientifically impossible.

Natalie replied :
But Gregsten and another's semen was originally on that piece of cloth both mixed with VS's vaginal fluid .Nothing is mentioned about whether these were all mixed together which would make LCN DNA testing of the items named illegal in many courts.[mixed samples are highly suspect however fresh and well stored in pristine conditions]

Baby bird said:We know it was covered in the rapist's semen, since it was covered in that from the time the rape was committed. Unless you wish to argue someone took it out of the drawer and washed it?

Natalie:
Read up on how quickly DNA can disappear :

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/06/090608182541.htm

I am arguing that a speck of Hanratty's DNA was all that was needed to entirely cover that tiny piece of extremely degraded cloth during LCN DNA testing and given the non sterile conditions we know it was kept in for thirty years , in a drawer together with other samples from the trial of hairs and fibres stored in glass shields, along with a broken glass vial suspected of having contained a semen wash from Hanratty's trousers in the drawe, it really shouldn't take a great deal of imagination to recognise why scientists other than Mr Whitaker are deeply suspicious of the entire LCN DNA testing process and have refused to recommend its use evidentially.


Extract from a 2009 article by Professor Budowle

The result is that several phe nomena can occur: a substantial imbalance of 2 alleles at a given heterozygous locus, allelic dropout, or increased stutter. With increased sensitivity of detection there is a concomitant increased risk of contamination.

-----------
The issues to consider include: training and education, evidence handling and collection procedures, the application or purpose for which the LCN result will be used, the reliability of current LCN methods, replicate anal- yses, interpretation and uncertainty, report writing, valida- tion requirements, and alternate methodologies for better performance.

NO evidence handling of the items discussed above exists

http://hrcak.srce.hr/file/63753

and this from a recent case [2011-I extracted the words from the article and need to search--I believe its also from J.Weir]
‚ ... I was concerned at the wide variance in expert opinions, not only as between the Prosecution and Defence but also between the two experts called for the Prosecution. The central plank in the attack made on the evidential value and reliability of this system by the Defence witnesses, Dr Krane and Professor Jamison, was that the LCN system which had been invented by Dr Gill of Birmingham FSS and whose use for evidential purposes is being promoted by him and a colleague at that laboratory, Dr Whitaker, has not been "validated" by the international scientific community.‛

Best Wishes,
Norma

[Natalie Severn]

ps errata-the three countries are New Zealand;Netherlands and ourselves [-not Sweden as stated]

[babybird67]

ps errata-the three countries are New Zealand;Netherlands and ourselves [-not Sweden as stated]

Not quite Nats.

LCN methods have been used as evidence in a number of countries, ie; United States (New York), New Zealand, Holland, Italy, Germany, Croatia, Austria and Switzerland. Other countries including Belgium, Sweden, United States, Australia, Canada, Cayman Islands and Bermuda have requested this type of analysis from the FSS, who provided statements and scientists to attend Court.

http://www.cps.gov.uk/publications/prosecution/lcn_testing.html

So not quite as selective as your list suggests.

Besides which, before it was developed nobody used DNA evidence at all. It's called scientific progression and it is now allowing hundreds of unsolved crimes to be resolved, for the benefit of safety and justice. Just because at the moment not every country uses it does not invalidate it as a testing process. I for one am grateful for scientific advances that keep me and my children safer because criminals need to understand that even a slight clue from their DNA means they will be caught whereas in Hanratty's day this science didn't exist.

Composing a post to your bigger answer now.

[Natalie Severn]

Not quite Nats.

http://www.cps.gov.uk/publications/prosecution/lcn_testing.html

So not quite as selective as your list suggests.

Besides which, before it was developed nobody used DNA evidence at all. It's called scientific progression and it is now allowing hundreds of unsolved crimes to be resolved, for the benefit of safety and justice. Just because at the moment not every country uses it does not invalidate it as a testing process. I for one am grateful for scientific advances that keep me and my children safer because criminals need to understand that even a slight clue from their DNA means they will be caught whereas in Hanratty's day this science didn't exist.

Composing a post to your bigger answer now.

The debate is most definitely not going towards LCN DNA testing for use as evidence in courts of law---quite the contrary. The Scientific International Community makes clear it views LCN DNA testing as dangerous and likely to attract contaminants .
Did you read any of the links I gave ?
If not , there is really no point in debating the matter,Jen .It is very clear that the International Scientific Community much prefers to use conventional DNA tests rather than these tests that have been concocted by two Birmingham forensic scientists who use maverick and untried methods.
Make no mistake,there are very grave doubts about these tests and few countries are willing to risk punishing innocent people for crimes they did not commit because these two mavericks from the Brum say they are ok..

[babybird67]

Natalie replied:

No ,it was so degraded they could not carry out ordinary DNA testing and had to use LCN DNA testing which is not allowed to be used for evidence in any other countries except ours Sweden and the Netherlands.

That's not correct. See my link above about the range of other countries using LCN testing. Even if it was correct, I don't áccept as a valid argument your contention that the lack of international acceptance of LCN should mean we don't accept it here. We don't need permission from any other country to use it. I am proud we are one of the countries at the forefront developing methods which allow us to catch criminals when they leave their DNA at the scene of the crime.

I pointedly did not refer solely to what happened in Ampthill during those ten days.
The items were first examined by two pathologists on 23rd August 1961.

Are you suggesting qualified pathologists didn't use precautionary methods when handling these items?

Regarding Ampthill,the exhibits were handled by police daily at the court when they put them on the table.

As I have already pointed out, the exhibits were not handed around devoid of packaging, with the exception perhaps of the gun and the cartridges, which is stated quite clearly in the Appeal Judgement.

Valerie Storie was taken to hospital in an ambulance where her clothing was removed,presumably by nurses.The underclothing was given to police to give to the first pathologists to examine at Bedford lab.It was next taken by police to Ampthill where it was put on display each day for ten days by court attendants and each day returned to the police van.

Again, I don't accept that they were handled in the manner you suggest. I believe even at the time people were aware of using gloves to handle items to prevent cross contamination and to preserve the items in the state they were in.

Later ,in late December 1961 ,the items of clothing were re-examined the day after Hanratty's trousers had been excised of semen.

Again, Nats, if you're suggesting such incompetence on the part of the pathologists that they didn't clean surfaces or just kept items together cross contaminating them willy nilly, sorry, I don't buy that for one second.

Picture this:
A bench to place the exhibits and a table to place them on.

Which would have been kept clean and sterile, or the job would have been pointless.

A scraping off of semen to put in a vessel to be made into a wash.

Hmmm.

The cleaner arrived the following day,brushes the floor wipes the bench the trousers were placed on and off of.
Next day, the knickers and the slips arrive. They are placed on the bench where the trousers were the day before.

How do you know where they were placed? Is there only one bench in this lab? Run by pathologists so incompetent they don't do their job in sterile condidtions guarding against cross contamination?

The piece of cloth was then kept for thirty years in non sterile conditions for DNA testing at a police lab.

It wasn't kept for DNA testing. It was put away and forgotten about. Nobody knew about DNA in the 60s since it wasn't discovered until the 80s.

DNA could not be interpreted by conventional DNA testing because it had degraded so overwhelmingly

http://www.cps.gov.uk/publications/prosecution/lcn_testing.html

The LCN test is based upon the same scientific principles as the standard SGM+ test

So if you are against the LCN testing, are you against DNA testing altogether? It is the same principle, but just a more sensitive test to catch criminals who try to erase their DNA profiles from the scenes of their crimes.

with variations designed to increase the sensitivity of the process, including copying the DNA sample 34 times rather than the standard 28.

So they copy more times to make MORE sure of the results.

Natalie:
Read up on how quickly DNA can disappear

So the rapist's entire ejaculate could disappear, but the tiny speck maybe scraped off Hanratty's trousers and miraculously coming into contact with the knickers was not only preserved but mutliplied? Sorry, don't accept that.

I am arguing that a speck of Hanratty's DNA was all that was needed to entirely cover that tiny piece of extremely degraded cloth

One speck of Hanratty's that mysteriously multiplied, yet the billions of specks from the rapist's ejaculate all as mysteriously washed off, from a process you are arguing multiplies the one speck to cover the entire cloth? Errr...nope...not buying it.That's an illogical and unscientific argument.

along with a broken glass vial suspected of having contained a semen wash from Hanratty's trousers

My emphases. Suspected by whom? Not by the people involved who said it was not usual practise to put liquids into vials and store them like that. This view is given credence by the fact that the two containers found around the broken vial showed absolutely no sign of any liquid damage, which would have been impossible if a vial of liquid had broken inside them.

The central plank in the attack made on the evidential value and reliability of this system by the Defence witnesses, Dr Krane and Professor Jamison, was that the LCN system which had been invented by Dr Gill of Birmingham FSS and whose use for evidential purposes is being promoted by him and a colleague at that laboratory, Dr Whitaker, has not been "validated" by the international scientific community.‛

From the CPS link I gave above:

Appendix B lists the internal validation and peer review process LCN has undergone within the FSS. Various methods are being developed to profile and interpret small quantities of DNA. The FSS process is accepted by the international, operational forensic community, some of whom are developing other ways to address these issues.

My emphases.

Some general points.

All the objections you raise about the DNA testing...the poor quality of the sample, the controversiality of the test, the storage conditions of the samples, etc, were ALL known quantities before the results of the tests were known. Hanratty's supporters campaigned tirelessly for these tests, in the mistaken belief that the tests would clear him. In doing so, they ACCEPTED all the conditions under which the tests would be carried out. It is not as if they wanted DNA tests and then suddenly something came to light about the way the items were stored, or they did not have their own experts who knew full well what LCN DNA testing would involve. They wanted these tests despite all the objections you raise. It was only when the result of the test did not go their way that they began complaining about the nature of the tests, which they fully accepted before the results disappointed them.

Secondly, if you really believe LCN DNA testing is not fit for purpose and shouldn't be permitted within the judicial process, there is ample of opportunity for you to direct your efforts to releasing some of the people still alive who could benefit from your lobbying against the process.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/jan/16/ukcrime.forensicscience

I've mentioned this case before. The tragic murder of Lesley Molseed.

The catch was that in trying to extract DNA from the tapings, the fragile bits of Sellotape - the last shreds of forensic evidence - would be destroyed. Turner commissioned some experimental work to see whether it was in theory possible. This proved a success, so West Yorkshire police and the FSS took the gamble. It paid off: in 2000, sufficient DNA was extracted from the tapings to obtain a profile. "To be able to extract sperm heads from a piece of Sellotape that had lain in a drawer for 25 years was absolutely fantastic," says Detective Chief Superintendent Max McLean, head of the crime division in West Yorkshire police, who ran the new investigation. "The scientists could say this profile was from sperm; the donor of sperm was going to be the killer."

Two points to note...one, sperm could be identified by the process as the sample from which the DNA came. Two, this was the tinist tiniest bit of sperm from a little girl's socks originally, transferred onto sellotape, and from a sample 25 years old. From this, a profile of the killer was obtained.

What the police did not have was a name. "The first thing we did was search the national DNA database and some international databases," says McLean, "but no match came up. But at least having a profile allowed us finally to eliminate Kiszko, Robert Black, Peter Sutcliffe, other well-known female and child killers, as well as our original suspect from 1999. In the debate on DNA, it's often lost that the elimination powers of DNA evidence are very important."

My emphases. Cross reference this to the DNA results in the Hanratty case where the Appeal Judgement states categorically in article 128:

By way of postscript we should record that it has been agreed by Mr Sweeney and Mr Mansfield that on the evidence now available Peter Alphon could not have been the murderer. It is understood that this agreement arose out of the DNA evidence.

There should be no further debate iplicating innocent men such as Alphon in the A6 murder. Both sides of the debate agree that the science has proven him innocent.

DNA cannot, on its own, gain a conviction. A judge in Scotland recently threw out a murder case where the prosecution had felt the DNA evidence was watertight, saying there had to be corroborative evidence.

So DNA is not used alone. It was not the only factor indicating Hanratty's guilt. His surviving victim identified him as did two other witnesses. There is the evidence of the gun, handkerchief, cartridge cases, lack of alibi etc etc.

The supporting evidence in Castree's case - admittedly largely circumstantial - was that he lived three-quarters of a mile from where Lesley had been abducted, had previous convictions for gross indecency and assault (pre-database - sample-taking was not retrospective), and could not account for his whereabouts on the day Lesley was murdered. He was convicted on a majority verdict.

"When the guilty verdict was read, I felt like a giant skyscraper had been lifted from my shoulders," said April Molseed, Lesley's mother, in an interview shortly after the trial ended, "this giant weight that I have carried with me for 32 years. It was such an incredible feeling of relief. Now I can go to Lesley's grave to tell her the news, and at last she can rest in peace." "This has been a bonding experience for the family," says McLean. "It has brought an element of closure. The family feel that to have achieved this after so long is fantastic."

My emphases. I read this and I wonder if this is how Valerie Storie felt on the day of the Appeal Judgement going public...that her fight was over, that her integrity and veracity would no longer be questioned. That she might be allowed to live the rest of her life peacefully secure in knowing every legal avenue had been available to Hanratty and his supporters to uphold an Appeal should it be justified...but that finally it would be accepted that it was not. That he was guilty. That the justice she won through the courts would now be respected and recognised. Closure comes with justice. Justice is for victims. It is incredibly distressing to me to think that, still, even now, there are people wishing to deny Valerie her justice and her closure.

Now, Nats, I have the utmost respect for you. We all like to fight for the underdog. Unforunately, it is my belief that you have misidentified the underdog in this scenario. Hanratty was a murderer and rapist. One of his victims is dead. The other has had to live her life crippled and haunted by that night for far too long. It is time she was allowed to 'enjoy' (wrong word, i know) the peace and respite of the justice she has won through our judicial system.

If you truly and honestly believe the condemnation you make of the LCN DNA process, may I suggest you do something that will really make a difference, and start a campaign to free Ronald Castree, who has been convicted on far less evidence than Hanratty was, and might benefit from arguments like yours being made in an appeal which might let him back into society again.

[Limehouse]

Although forensics then was not as developed as it is now, procedures were in place regarding the handling of exhibits. It is extremely doubtful that they were handed around willy nilly being handled by all and sundry. To further evidence that this was not the case, there is the total absence of anybody else's DNA on either the knickers or the handkerchief, especially since one of your concerns about LCN is that is multiplies even one tiny speck of DNA. To argue that, and also to argue not only that everybody else's DNA other than Hanratty's must have just disappeared, including the (what must be) billions of specks of DNA contained in the entire ejaculate of the rapist, spreading five inches up Valerie's knickers, all just somehow got wiped out, using a process you wish to argue multiplies it, is just illogical and inconsistent, and, I would argue, scientifically impossible.

As I have constantly stated - Valerie removed her knickers before the rape. This makes it extremely unlikely that the semen found in a pattern spreading five inches up the back of the knicker fragment was Hanratty's. This semen is much more likely to have been deposited by Gregsten in the act of withdrawing before ejaculation so as to prevent pregnancy.

It is much more likley that the rapist's semen wold have occupied the crotch are - having seeped out following the replacement of the knickers.

What has also been stated (and evidenced through a scientific link posted some time ago) is that is it not possible to identify semen from DNA testing - therefore - if Hanratty's DNA was found on the knicker fragment - it would not be possible - according to many scientists - to establish that it was there because of sexual intercourse.

[babybird67]

As I have constantly stated - Valerie removed her knickers before the rape.

And put them straight back on afterwards. Leaving them on her person to catch the semen leaking from her after the act of intercourse.

This makes it extremely unlikely that the semen found in a pattern spreading five inches up the back of the knicker fragment was Hanratty's.

I don't accept that. She put her knickers back on after the rape, therefore the knickers would have been covered in the rapist's semen.

This semen is much more likely to have been deposited by Gregsten in the act of withdrawing before ejaculation so as to prevent pregnancy.

How do we know she had her knickers on when Gregsten made love to her?

It is much more likley that the rapist's semen wold have occupied the crotch are - having seeped out following the replacement of the knickers.

And yet Gregsten's went up the back for some reason? But Hanratty's couldn't? I think it is more likely she was still half lying down in the back seat, so the semen spread on areas of the knickers it might not usually go on.

What has also been stated (and evidenced through a scientific link posted some time ago) is that is it not possible to identify semen from DNA testing - therefore - if Hanratty's DNA was found on the knicker fragment - it would not be possible - according to many scientists - to establish that it was there because of sexual intercourse.

I've posted a link from the Castree case which demonstrates sperm can be identified.

[Natalie Severn]

Hi Jen,
I have thought long and hard about this case.I do not believe there was one jot,one iota,of evidence against Hanratty.

From the moment Janet Gregsten was reported to have seen him enter the dry cleaners -confirmed by Mr Wood ,the manager,I mistrusted everything about the bogus case against Hanratty.It didn't even need to have been Janet Gregsten who had the alleged 'bogus sighting'--William Ewer explained how it was in fact himself who had seen Hanratty in the Fal a fel cafe on Finchley Road near Charles France's flat in Boundary Road [see London area maps on google]early September and called Scotland Yard.Mrs Morrell told police on 1st September 1961 that a young man calling himself J.Ryan had sent flowers to his mother,Mrs Hanratty of Sycamore Grove on 1st September 1961 and Mr Ewer in his long statement in The Sunday Times of 16 May 1971 ,said he had seen Hanratty enter Dorothy Morrell's flower shop that very same day -1st September 1961.8 days after the murder,long before Hanratty became a suspect.He said the windows of the Flower shop were steamed up so he didn't see the interaction.
This ,together with Mr Charles France going to the police to tell them where Hanratty hid his 'rubbish' and then France going to Mr Ewer to apologise for Ewer's brother in law's death followed a few days later by his suicide, told me there was more to this queer tale than poor Hanratty ever knew.
Mr Ewer was also a business acquaintance of Louise Anderson----!!!
Throw in the fact that not long after Hanratty had been hanged , William Ewer became the lover of Mrs Janet Gregsten,the widow of the murdered man and you really should start to wonder about some of these people---who all lived or worked within a few hundred yards of each other.
I have met some of the people from Rhyl,still angry about how their sighting of Hanratty on the 22 August 1961 was never disclosed.There is a consensus among them that there was some sort of behind the scenes foul play just as Michael Sherrard,Hanratty's trial barrister has also stated.But the people in Rhyl can't understand why.
No amount of Brum maverick forensic experts standing up in court flouting the International guidelines on conventional DNA testing and instead using their own home grown variety ,known to be vulnerable to the spread of contaminants,will convince me otherwise.
.There was no other witness apart from Valerie Storie.Valerie wrongly identified Michael Clark and admitted she had only glimpsed the gunman's face and went on to help construct an identikit picture that looked nothing like Hanratty......!!!!!!!!!!!!!
A tragic load of pure bull that was what it was about Hanratty--- pure bull---from start to finish.

[Natalie Severn]

Three countries and three countries only use LCN DNA testing for evidence in court.