A6 Rebooted

[OneRound]

Hi Julie - thanks for your response, much appreciated.

Not for the first time, you pick me up on a potentially flawed example. I had never considered that the paternity of Gregsten's sons might have been questioned had their DNA not been a match with the DNA on the underwear. Very good and fair point. I think you have a more suspicious nature than you let on ;-).

Regardless of the weakness of my example, my main emphasis was that the DNA ''attributed'' to Gregsten should have been thoroughly tested to prove as far as possible that it was or was not his. With the necessary will, I'm sure that could have still been done.

Your reference to ''the minds of the jury'' is probably very relevant. There have been many comments in previous posts as how the respectable, property owning jurors were likely to be prejudiced against the property stealing Hanratty. Without defending prejudice in any way, I wonder if those same jurors might have looked on Miss Storie less sympathetically if they had been aware that on that fateful evening she had been doing more in that field than plan a car rally.

[Limehouse]

Hi One Round. Please be assured, I am not in any way questioning the paternity of MG's sons. However, in the event that their DNA was used in comparison with the DNA on the underwear and was found not to be a match, I am sure that, instead of concluding the DNA was not deposited by MG, his son's paternity might be questioned.

I support entirely your point that the defence should have made more of this attribution. After all, if the relationship between MG and VS was not explored or even up for discussion at the time of the trial, why should the defence be expected to accept, without question, that this DNA belonged to MG? Why should they have accepted 'evidence' that was not 'tested' (ie under cross examination) during the trial?

Julie

[OneRound]

Hi One Round. Please be assured, I am not in any way questioning the paternity of MG's sons.

Hi again Julie - sorry, I didn't for a moment intend to suggest that you were.

I was really trying to applaud you for having the foresight to suspect and spot that others might.

From a non scientific basis, I have one or two other concerns about the DNA evidence and interpretations given to it. Having got your attention, I'll flag those tomorrow.

Best wishes,

OneRound

[Natalie Severn]

Looking forward to reading your concerns One Round!
AtB
Norma

[caz]

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

No DNA testing of any kind was available in 1962, Louisa. I should have made it clearer that I was talking about 2002, when Hanratty's defence seem to have rolled over and accepted the scenario suggested by the results, instead of questioning certain aspects, such as the profile attributed to Gregsten.

Since the blood groups established from the two semen stains matched Hanratty and Gregsten, I suppose it was only logical to conclude that it was these stains that yielded two of the three DNA profiles, one being Hanratty's, therefore the other presumed to be Gregsten's.

Love,

Caz
X

[silver101]

Interesting Scots case involving DNA found on weapon

Yet another interesting case invoving DNA,the accused acquitted despite his DNA being found on one of the murder weapons.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-17953266

The DNA of a lab technician, who had never touched the gun and worked three floors above where it was stored, was found in the sample analysed by forensic scientists, along with that of three unidentified men.

The Defence QC said: "This incident with the lab worker just shows how mobile DNA is and how it can innocently transfer from one place to another."

[caz]

Unfortunately, this only damages the argument that the rapist's DNA managed not to transfer to the fragment of the same garment that had been stained with his semen!

Love,

Caz
X

[Cogidubnus]

Beyond reasonable doubt?

Unfortunately, this only damages the argument that the rapist's DNA managed not to transfer to the fragment of the same garment that had been stained with his semen!

With respect, how do you know this? It appears there was another sample of DNA present which wasn't tested against anyone else at all....

All the best

Dave

[Natalie Severn]

'A serious miscarriage of justice brought about by a combination of manifestly unreliable identification evidence ,the failings in the original police investigation-the apparent failure of his own alibi, failure by police to properly investigate this alibi and non-disclosure by the prosecution of material that could have supported his case '

http://bit.ly/KhX87y

All the ingredients that went into the original trial of James Hanratty.

As for the LCN DNA tests Caz---ofcourse I would never suggest the police may have 'planted it'--
psst----read the article--especially on lack on disclosure......

[caz]

With respect, how do you know this? It appears there was another sample of DNA present which wasn't tested against anyone else at all....

All the best

Dave

Hi Dave,

Apologies for my delay in responding - I'm only just catching up with many topics.

I don't 'know' it; it's one of the arguments made by those who believe Hanratty was innocent. I don't think I have ever seen them argue that the third DNA profile found on the underwear fragment, which was attributed to Gregsten, could in fact have been the rapist's. They usually flit between three equally implausible sounding scenarios: the rapist's DNA a) was absent from the start (implying that the wrong part of the garment was chucked away, along with all the crucial group O semen evidence), or b) had entirely degraded over the years (while the other profiles from the early 60s survived), or c) was masked by Hanratty's DNA which accidentally contaminated the fragment.

I have to say that if there was a better chance that the rapist's group O DNA had been misattributed to Gregsten (while his profile was the missing one - remember there were two distinct semen stains to begin with?), I doubt we'd have heard the end of it, from 2002 to this day.

So why is this the first I've heard of the suggestion?

Love,

Caz
X

[Cogidubnus]

Hi Caz

To me, the fact that DNA testing was undertaken, and it was only thought appropriate to attempt to match up one sample is either monstrously incompetent or monstrously corrupt...either way, it is yet another nail in the coffin of the alleged safety of the appeal verdict...the loose-ends were not tied down as they should've been, and the sample was demonstrably unsafe anyway...

I'm a person who always thought Hanratty was guilty, and I guess at heart I still instinctively feel that way, but, in law, unless it can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, then it simply didn't happen...

A shambolically incomplete DNA test on potentially contaminated material does not advance the cause of justice one jot, and I'm ashamed to be part of a society which apparently accepts such crap pseudoscience as evidence.

Sorry Caz...my heart's with you, but....

All the best
Dave

[Limehouse]

Hello Dave - and welcome to the A6 debate.

An excellent post - and you are not alone in concluding that Hanratty was probably guilty - but that a fair trial and appeal did not take place. Several other people on this thread have argued similarly.

Regards

Julie

[caz]

Hi Caz

To me, the fact that DNA testing was undertaken, and it was only thought appropriate to attempt to match up one sample is either monstrously incompetent or monstrously corrupt...either way, it is yet another nail in the coffin of the alleged safety of the appeal verdict...the loose-ends were not tied down as they should've been, and the sample was demonstrably unsafe anyway...

Hi Dave,

How do you know it was 'only thought appropriate to attempt to match up one sample'? You are presuming that they could easily have obtained DNA close enough to the murdered Gregsten to make a comparison possible, but didn't even bother trying. Yet they went to all the trouble and expense of exhuming Hanratty's remains, and matching one of the two remaining DNA profiles to Valerie, so it would have made sense to complete the job had they been able - if only to stop Hanratty defenders coming up with fresh arguments for the rapist being someone else.

Sometimes, the forensic evidence is exactly what it appears to be.

Love,

Caz
X

[Graham]

Strewth, I thought the A6 Thread was dead....I haven't looked in for quite a while now.

Re: the DNA, I understand that samples of DNA were taken from one or both of Gregsten's sons, and also from Peter Alphon. If this helps.

Cheers,

Graham

PS: yes, Caz, I agree with you - sometimes the forensic evidence IS what it sez on the tin.

[Cogidubnus]

Am I misunderstanding or something?

So all the DNA samples present were matched then? Oh well that's ok...

Wait up...they weren't? Oh ok that's still ok...or is it?

Are we trying to read something into what isn't there. Are we to assume that because there is no positive match stated in the enquiry evidence, that testing was nonetheless done and proved negative? That seems a somewhat irresponsible assumption...Surely that's not what you meant Caz?

Graham says DNA samples were taken from Gregsten's sons and Peter Alphon...I'm not an expert...so were they? If so, what was the result? Human sensitivities mean nothing in a murder appeal, so if the second set of DNA results don't match Gregsten's sons, then regardless of any family implications, we should be told. Regardless of Haratty's death this isn't negotiable...Public access to evidence is totally implicit in both the British Coronial and Legal systems...Similarly if they did match we should be told...or if no testing was undergone at all this should be explained.

I've got no vested interest in viewing this case from either one angle or another...I was born in 1953 so I was hardly that interested at the time. I admit all I've ever heard of the case suggested Hanratty's guilt...but I hate injustice, and there does seem to me, something cavalier (if not downright underhand) about the way this DNA "evidence" has been acquired, presented and accepted...

All the very best

Dave