A6 Rebooted

[Graham]

Hi all,

However, given that she removed her underwear, there must surely have been some forensic evidence deposited within the car. None was found. As Graham has pointed out, this is hard to explain and as Graham also explained, it is surprising the defence did not make more of this.

Now, it is fair to speculate that the examination of the car was none too thorough. How can we therefore rely on examinations of clothing under very poor conditions?

It wasn't just body fluids that weren't found in the car (assuming that they were looked for), but there was apprently NO forensics of any kind apart from Gregsten's blood and the fingerprints of people who had recently used the car legitimately. The thing is, if Hanratty cannot be connected to the car due to lack of forensics, then neither can enyone else, Alphon included. I honestly cannot believe that nothing was found unless, as Julie says, the examination of the car wasn't very thorough. But I'm sure that, for example, the sticky-tape technique of removing clothing fibre from surfaces was in existence in 1961. I always felt there was something rather odd about this aspect of the case.

I've avoided getting into the DNA debate on this thread, but if DNA samples can be lifted from bandages of 5000 year-old mummified remains then surely there shouldn't be much of a problem with relatively new clothing.

Graham

[Graham]

Tattoos

In light of something I've recently read, has anyone any information with regard to James Hanratty having one or more tattoos?

Thanks,

Graham

[caz]

LCN is now considered a magnet for contaminants.

Also how come the DNA of the nurses who removed valerie's underwear and the police who handled all these materials daily and often together -taking them to the lab. and from police station to the pathologists - how come their dna was never found on the cloth ?

...the exhibits clerk arriving at court with the duffle bag and a pile of other exhibits and he is BAREHANDED !!!!!so when he took out the hanky his dna would have remained on it ------Hanratty"s and later at the trial members of the jury would have been permitted to pass these exhibits round.so how come all this DNA which lcn DNA can pick up from almost nothing- how come it has all disappeared?

Well Nats, the fact remains that none of these potential contaminants left a single discernible trace to be picked up forty years on from either the hanky or knicker fragment. I realise this is inconvenient when you are arguing that Hanratty's DNA was one such contaminant to reach the knicker fragment via secondary transfer, because it would be the sole surviving example in that case. This makes it so much more likely that only the strongest traces survived: the bodily fluids of victim, lover and rapist on the knickers, and Hanratty's nasal mucous on his hanky.

If you can't accept the absence of any minor contaminants, it's somewhat ironic that you have no trouble believing that the rapist's semen 'all disappeared', despite it having stained the knicker fragment directly and been blood typed at the time.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

At the risk of repeating myself, the rapist's DNA was apprarently found on her underwear, even though she removed her knickers prior to the rape. Now this is not impossible, as there would possibly have been some leaking (sorry to be so indelicate) when she replaced her knickers. However, given that she removed her underwear, there must surely have been some forensic evidence deposited within the car. None was found. As Graham has pointed out, this is hard to explain and as Graham also explained, it is surprising the defence did not make more of this.

Now, it is fair to speculate that the examination of the car was none too thorough. How can we therefore rely on examinations of clothing under very poor conditions?

Hi Limehouse,

I have never really understood this argument. The same would have applied when Valerie had sex with Gregsten in the car. She would presumably have taken her knickers off for that too, then put them back on as quickly as possible to contain the leaking. Leaking into her knickers would be pretty much inevitable without tissues to hand, while leaking onto the car seat was only ever a possibility if she couldn't get her undies back on quickly enough. (Don't ask how I know all this, but I have a good memory for some things. )

We know that two types of semen were found and blood typed during examination of the garment afterwards, so obviously the conditions were not too poor to obtain what mattered at the time - evidence of the rape plus the offender's blood group.

Everything they found and didn't find back then matches up with everything they found and didn't find forty years later. That has to count for something.

Love,

Caz
X

[Natalie Severn]

Hi Caz,
The fragment of cloth which was so minuscule you could barely see it with the naked eye was all that remained of the knickers.
The fragment could- it's true - easily have missed other DNA samples it's just very very odd that none is on either hanky or knicker fragment.
Caz,you appear to keep ignoring the fact that now, in 2012, LCN DNA testing is only considered reliable if
A) the storage history is one of total sterility from crime scene to laboratory testing. Neither hanky or knickers fragment would even be considered to be used for a true DNA test reading today such is the high risk of contaminants.yet we know they were handled by Dr Nickolls on 23rd August, taken from cardboard boxes by exhibits clarks with no gloves on at the committal in November 1961 and then again taken by police car to Dr Grant on 28/29 December of same year 1961 in
latter case along with Hanratty"s trousers ie tested in very same lab as semen was taken from Hanratty"s trousers on 28 December and on 29 December Valerie's knickers were tested and her slips and the knicker piece was cut off and then blow me down the semen was made into a wash and kept and 42 years later found in
a police lab drawer same drawer as V's knicker fragment was found and same drawer as where a vial was found - or rather a broken vial was found- it's rubber bung alongside glass fragment and curved glass. So whatever was in that vial could easily have transferred contaminants to the
knicker fragment-not just transferred but could have saturated the tiny fragment of knicker cloth
with Hanratty's DNA from it's spillage thereby masking all the other persons DNA that must have
been on it...
Must go - again sorry if post is a bit difficult to read my computer is damaged so am posting this
on my iPhone and it's not easy
AtB
Norma xx
You know about this Caz....about Bruce Budowles and others discoveries about the lack of scientific acceptability of LCN DNA testing it's susceptibility to cross contamination etc etc

[Natalie Severn]

It is really difficult to edit what you have written when you post on a phone and rereading my post above I want to add that I am aware we do not know exactly what was in the broken vial found in the same drawer as the fragment of cloth from the knickers and the fibres and hairs held between glass plates that were either from Hanratty or possibly from Alphon -I am aware though that both prosecution and defence sides agreed it could have contained the seminal wash obtained from Hanratty's trousers that was done on 28 December 1961.

[caz]

Hi Caz,
The fragment of cloth which was so minuscule you could barely see it with the naked eye was all that remained of the knickers.

Hi Nats,

Have you a source for the actual size of the fragment which produced the DNA results that allegedly made a 'strong case even stronger'?

Neither hanky or knickers fragment would even be considered to be used for a true DNA test reading today such is the high risk of contaminants.

You keep saying this and I can only repeat that if Hanratty's DNA on the hanky or knickers was one such contaminant, it was the only one that survived to be picked up along with the two expected profiles of victim and lover, while the third expected profile - the rapist's - failed to survive.

So whatever was in that vial could easily have transferred contaminants to the
knicker fragment-not just transferred but could have saturated the tiny fragment of knicker cloth
with Hanratty's DNA from it's spillage thereby masking all the other persons DNA that must have
been on it...

Come now Nats, this doesn't make sense. Hanratty's DNA failed to 'mask' the victim's DNA or the one remaining profile attributed to Gregsten.

In any case, none of this would make Hanratty innocent even if you were right about DNA from the rape itself not surviving, or being 'masked' or never present on that fragment to begin with, and even if you were right about the source being Hanratty's trousers after the event. He was not convicted on the knicker evidence and he could still have raped Valerie and been correctly identified by her because no other suspect DNA was found to suggest another man's guilt.

Love,

Caz
X

[Natalie Severn]

Hi Caz
Can you first show me proof that Michael Gregstens DNA was actually on the fragment of cloth because the wording is very ambiguous- it seems it was not-all that is said is that on this fragment of a sample lower than 0.0000000001 of a gram in weight -there was "evidence" that sexual intercourse had occurred between Valerie Storie and James Hanratty.
Remember here that there were no independent observers to oversight the testing which was carried put "in camera" where nobody from the public was allowed access so no validation of their methods was possible- remember too that "repeatability" is the cornerstone of scientific method but the experiment was impossible to repeat because these tests- which were carried out in secret actually-could not be repeated as the evidence was destroyed .......so the FSS moved the posts and no check was possible -you were requested to simply have faith in their methods!
As Gareth Peirce has insisted there is a basic necessity in all criminal cases for evidential preservation
Nx

[caz]

Hi Nats,

As you know, there was no 'proof' that the third DNA profile from the knicker fragment was Gregsten's; it was attributed to him, and as far as I am aware Valerie did not question this attribution. So it's a safe bet that sexual intercourse had taken place between the lovers before the rapist struck, and the 'evidence' was concluded to be entirely consistent with this scenario, with Hanratty as the rapist.

If there had been the slightest possibility that the DNA attributed to Gregsten could in fact have come from Alphon, or A.N.Other, do you not think the defence team missed a trick? They could find no way round it, and that remains the case today with no further appeal in the wind.

I don't need to show you proof of anything. It has been entirely the other way round for the last decade.

Love,

Caz
X

[louisa]

Hi Nats,

If there had been the slightest possibility that the DNA attributed to Gregsten could in fact have come from Alphon, or A.N.Other, do you not think the defence team missed a trick? They could find no way round it, and that remains the case today with no further appeal in the wind.

I don't need to show you proof of anything. It has been entirely the other way round for the last decade.

Love,

Caz
X

If I'm not mistaken in 1962 the only 'DNA' test available was blood grouping.

[Natalie Severn]

Hi Caz,
Remember we do not have exact notes from any of these tests neither from the 28/29 Decemeber 1961 ones or the 2002 ones-and regarding a test from a forensic scientist we really should have exact notes as a prosecution will depend on them
-from Dr Grant's findings for example we do not know how the semen was excised from the inside fly of Hanratty's trousers---all we know is that it is recorded as having been done on 28th December 1961 while Hanratty was in custody and that on the same day
* intimate samples taken from his private parts were examined
and
*semen from the inside fly of his trousers was removed

What was discovered at this time was that Hanratty shared the same blood group as Alphon ---and 40% of the male population---- and that the other person's semen on the knickers was of a different blood group----presumed to have come from Gregsten-but not known for sure.

[If you read the case here fro my book-hope it is clear enough btw-you will see that Dr Whitaker admits that he has allowed items of evidence ,even today in his high tech lab, to lie about together in open bags and that there was in fact the possibility for contamination,transfer of DNA from one item to another-how much less pristine then were conditions in the forensic police labs of 1961?]

Anyway-the following day as we understand from the report, in the very same police lab in 1961
* the knickers were brought in for examination and the slips.
then a piece was cut from the crotch area---and all this is in the same lab as the hairs/intimate samples of Hanratty which were examined the previous day-
--------
Clearly a good QC today in 2012 could make mincemeat of the supposed 'certainties' of those 2002 DNA tests given what is getting known about LCN testing and its 'grey areas' !

[Natalie Severn]

Caz-this is the last part of the piece re the Dr Whitaker case over Simpson-written up by Andy--as you see William Beadle finishes the section on DNA here.
x

[Natalie Severn]

Hi Caz-trying to post a clearer image of text of first pages posted above:
- just seen it and it is clearer.......

[OneRound]

... If there had been the slightest possibility that the DNA attributed to Gregsten could in fact have come from Alphon, or A.N.Other, do you not think the defence team missed a trick? ...

Hi Caz - I wouldn't go so far as to say the defence team missed a trick in 2002 but I do wonder if they could and should have pushed certain aspects further.

In particular, the DNA ''attributed'' to Gregsten or ''assumed'' to come from him as per the 2002 Court of Appeal judgment. I'm puzzled why the defence team didn't probe this more and demand proof of it through, for example, DNA samples being provided by one of Gregsten's sons. Whatever the outcome, the defence team would have been no worse off. If this DNA was clearly shown to be Gregsten's, matters would simply be confirmed as already widely assumed with no further harm being attached to the Hanratty camp as a result.

However, the cat would have been well and truly amongst the pigeons if this DNA was shown not to match Gregsten. The implication would be that there was either a new (as yet unknown) suspect in the frame or the whole of the 2002 scientific evidence, including all that against Hanratty, was unsafe due to demonstrable contamination.

The above said, in my view the DNA ''attributed'' to Gregsten was most probably Gregsten's and would have been proved so accordingly. It would have been a bit of a longshot to expect otherwise. I just fail to see any risk for the defence team in taking this longshot and perhaps a small chance of a very different outcome if it had been.

[Limehouse]

Hi Caz - I wouldn't go so far as to say the defence team missed a trick in 2002 but I do wonder if they could and should have pushed certain aspects further.

In particular, the DNA ''attributed'' to Gregsten or ''assumed'' to come from him as per the 2002 Court of Appeal judgment. I'm puzzled why the defence team didn't probe this more and demand proof of it through, for example, DNA samples being provided by one of Gregsten's sons. Whatever the outcome, the defence team would have been no worse off. If this DNA was clearly shown to be Gregsten's, matters would simply be confirmed as already widely assumed with no further harm being attached to the Hanratty camp as a result.

However, the cat would have been well and truly amongst the pigeons if this DNA was shown not to match Gregsten. The implication would be that there was either a new (as yet unknown) suspect in the frame or the whole of the 2002 scientific evidence, including all that against Hanratty, was unsafe due to demonstrable contamination.

The above said, in my view the DNA ''attributed'' to Gregsten was most probably Gregsten's and would have been proved so accordingly. It would have been a bit of a longshot to expect otherwise. I just fail to see any risk for the defence team in taking this longshot and perhaps a small chance of a very different outcome if it had been.

Hi One Round,

I think this is a very important point. The other DNA was attributed to Gregsten but the nature of MG and VS's relationship was never revealed to the jury. Throughout the trial, it was always claimed that the couple had been in the field planning a car rally. Now, ordinarily the relationship of a couple in such circumstances would be their own business UNLESS it could be shown that the relationship was a motive for the crime. Ignoring the relationship of MG and VS in the context of the crime was misleading and distorted the perception of the crime in the minds of the jury. Taking for granted that the DNA was MG's extends that distortion. We have never been asked to question the official version of the events of that evening because, quite frankly, it seems ungracious to question the honesty of events in the circumstances.

As you say One Round, the defence had nothing to lose in challenging the attribution. However, I think there would have been problems with obtaning DNA from MG's sons because, had their DNA not been a match with the DNA on the underwear, the conclusion may have been one of paternity (ie it might have been said the son's were not actually fathered by MG).

Julie