A6 Rebooted

[silver101]

Dyslexic in Rhyl,Drunk in South Eaton....

I suspect that Rab didnt read Sherrard's letter-this might have been done by a junior civil servant (BA hons Camb,humanities) lurking near the port,but only done to 'frame' a suitably courteous reply.

Trebles all round.....

[Limehouse]

Welcome to the debate Silver. The weeks drift by and the 50th anniversary of JH's execution approaches.

[Graham]

I've been meaning to post these figures for some time:

Death Sentence Statistics, UK, 20th century.

In the 66 years of the 20th century in which a death-sentence could be passed (in England and Wales), the following figures apply:

No of men sentenced: 1340
No of men executed: 741
Reprieval rate: 55%

No of women sentenced: 145
No of women executed: 14
Reprieval rate: 90%

Acknowledgement to Capital Punishment UK for these figures.

Graham

[Limehouse]

Thanks for posting those Graham. They are very interesting. I wonder why the reprieve rate for women is so high compared to men? I would think it is to do with the motives? Seems a bit unfair though.

I do feel that with over 700 executions in 66 years, with around 1, 500 execution carrying sentences passed, it does make you think about whether execution really was an effective deterrent?

[Natalie Severn]

Hi Everybody,
There is a new two page spread on Michael Sherrard in "The Oldie" just out-the article also mentions the Hanratty Trial.They carried an article in January about the three booklets I have written.The fourth booklet will carry a long article by William Beadle on the DNA-I am just getting this 4th booklet finished
Norma

[Graham]

Thanks for posting those Graham. They are very interesting. I wonder why the reprieve rate for women is so high compared to men? I would think it is to do with the motives? Seems a bit unfair though.

I do feel that with over 700 executions in 66 years, with around 1, 500 execution carrying sentences passed, it does make you think about whether execution really was an effective deterrent?

Hi Julie,

Without ploughing through the details of all the 20th century cases, I'd suggest that most murders were domestic and unplanned and spur-of-the-moment, hence the high reprieve rate on appeal. Dunno why so many women were reprieved, though.

Graham

[Limehouse]

Hi Julie,

Without ploughing through the details of all the 20th century cases, I'd suggest that most murders were domestic and unplanned and spur-of-the-moment, hence the high reprieve rate on appeal. Dunno why so many women were reprieved, though.

Graham

Hi Graham,

Could it be the type of crimes women often carried out in those days? The 'crime of passion' sort of stuff? Or perhaps women were so often considered so over-emotional and daft, they could not be held responsible for their own actions - unless they seemed to be the mastermind behind the crime - to which the response would be 'she must be disposed of - she'll encourage the others!'

Was in Birmingham on Thursday night - at the magnificent Symphony Hall. What a wonderful building! Saw The Hollies. Only two from the original line-up but nevertheless a great show. Sorry - I digress.

[silver101]

Interesting article on contaminated DNA Testing

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2114252/Teenager-spends-months-bars-DNA-blunder-fingers-rape-city-visited.html

[louisa]

It just goes to show that if DNA results are unsafe in 2012 then we have every reason to suppose that there is every chance that the results of Hanratty's DNA testing were also incorrect.

1n 1961 and 1962 there was no real understanding of how to store items of clothing so that cross-contamination could not occur.

[Natalie Severn]

re DNA

Thanks Silver 101 and Louise,
Dear Everybody,
Part Four of the series of four booklets on James Hanratty and the A6 is now out and can be purchased from Housmans.
It contains two splendid articles from the brilliant William[Bill] Beadle, Chair of the Whitechapel Society, who has had an exceptionally long interest in the A6 case dating back to when Paul Foot first published his book," Who Killed Hanratty? ".Bill actually wrote an extremely lengthy letter to the Home Secretary when the Hawser Report came out ,very effectively attacking it as 'nothing more than an exercise in shoring up a conviction which by all objective reasoning was no longer sustainable'.
Bill has published two books,one entitled 'Jack the Ripper: Anatomy of a Myth ' [1995] the other 'Jack the Ripper Unmasked' [2009] .He is a member of Mensa and several other societies.
Andrew Buddle, [equally brilliant] is a sociologist and has also contributed.Andy has long been interested in the various news stories that have hit the headlines involving dodgy DNA testing leading to miscarriages of Justice ,the one cited above in the Mail being an example of a case going on right now wrongly identifying a man as a rapist when he had been nowhere near the scene of the crime .
Part Four concentrates on the DNA issue and the appeals----more later....

I will post the link to Housmans when they receive the 'introduction' to Part Four from me-hopefully tonight!

[louisa]

I'm looking forward to reading Part 4, Norma.

[Natalie Severn]

Thanks Louisa!x

[caz]

It just goes to show that if DNA results are unsafe in 2012 then we have every reason to suppose that there is every chance that the results of Hanratty's DNA testing were also incorrect.

1n 1961 and 1962 there was no real understanding of how to store items of clothing so that cross-contamination could not occur.

Hi Louisa,

There are more safe DNA results than unsafe ones, so this is meaningless when related to the Hanratty case.

If you wanted to claim that cross-contamination was pretty much inevitable in cases from the early 60s, including the A6 case, you would have to show how the tiny knicker fragment (which indicated just the three DNA profiles of the victim, her lover and the convicted man) came into close enough contact with Hanratty's belongings but only Hanratty's, to pick up his DNA and retain it faithfully over the next 40 years, while the DNA from the rapist's semen, which had previously and directly soaked the same fragment, and was duly examined and blood-typed, managed to do a complete and perfect vanishing act. In short, you would be arguing for a DNA sandwich that lost every last trace of its filling somewhere along the line.

It doesn't add up, I'm afraid, and never will. And that's why the Appeal Judgement was quite clear about the evidence not supporting the cross-contamination speculation. Which is all it ever was.

Love,

Caz
X

[Natalie Severn]

Hi Louisa,

There are more safe DNA results than unsafe ones, so this is meaningless when related to the Hanratty case.

Hi Caz,

Not when the sample of DNA is less than 0.0000000001 of a gram as it was in the 42 year old cloth examined and when the most likely source of contamination was cross- contamination in 1961/62 when exhibits were,according to Michael Sherrard,'put out from boxes carted to and fro' viz you need so little DNA to contaminate a sample and they were just carting boxes of stuff backwards and forwards'-
I would add not only at the committal when the knickers were put out along with Hanratty's trousers but also at the trial itself and obviously we have no idea what conditions prevailed in the lab on 28 and 29 December 1961, when semen was removed from Hanratty's trousers the day before.the knickers and slips were examined and pieces cut from them.For example did airborne particles of dried semen mix with airborne dust when they were 'removed'[how?] from the inside fly of Hanratty's trousers in the police lab?
Today ,because of its susceptibility to contamination LCN samples have to be stored from crime scene to lab in the most sterile containers,taken to a wholly sterile environment-pressurised laboratories; ultra violet irradiation of benches,deep and constant cleaning with personnel wearing clean overwear,masks,footwear,headware and double rubber gloves changed at regular intervals and according to Professor Allan Jamieson,Director of the Forensic Institute in Glasgow even in these pristine conditions contamination can still take place.
Testifying at Hanratty's appeal Roger Mann of the FSS averred that had cross contamination occurred he would have expected the samples to yield both Hanratty's and the killer's DNA profiles.
WHAT? on a sample lower than 0.0000000001 of a gram?

[caz]

The thing is Nats, the very fact that 'you need so little DNA to contaminate a sample' makes it all the less likely that the rapist's semen could have done a total disappearing act, or that only Hanratty's DNA would have shown up as a contaminant. Wouldn't you agree that using your own argument, the fragment of knicker that had been attached to the rest of the knickers (so the contact could not have been any closer) would have been far less likely to escape traces of the rapist's DNA than just about any other scenario you care to imagine. If the fragment is meant to have become hopelessly contaminated with DNA from an innocent Hanratty's trousers (even assuming they did come into close contact) how likely is it that it would not have picked up the guilty man's DNA while it was part of the same garment that he had contaminated with his semen? Do you see what I mean?

If several other profiles had been picked up then fair enough; one could have been the rapist's, while Hanratty's could have been one of several innocent profiles that had contaminated the sample. But since only the three profiles were detected - no more, no less - and they were entirely consistent with the victim's experience and her identification of Hanratty, there is absolutely no evidence that the sample did in fact become contaminated with any rogue DNA, or managed to escape the rapist's own DNA.

Love,

Caz
X