A6 Rebooted

[caz]

If it's such a good point, I wonder why the defence didn't make more of it when Hanratty was on trial for his life and the jury needed to see reasonable doubt. If he had to have been there in Liverpool to know what he knew, then why would he have felt forced into changing his alibi to Rhyl, against advice? Sounds like you are saying he was rather badly let down by his own side.

Love,

Caz
X

[Limehouse]

If it's such a good point, I wonder why the defence didn't make more of it when Hanratty was on trial for his life and the jury needed to see reasonable doubt. If he had to have been there in Liverpool to know what he knew, then why would he have felt forced into changing his alibi to Rhyl, against advice? Sounds like you are saying he was rather badly let down by his own side.

Love,

Caz
X

Sigh. I happen to think it is a good point. Whether you think so or not is up to you.

As has been pointed out by Norma, the prosecution was obviously worried about this aspect of the case because they tried to suggest Hanratty had taken a plane or helicopter from Liverpool to London in order to be in that cornfield to carry out a 'random' robbery, murder and rape.

By stating that Hanratty 'changed his alibi to Rhyl' you are suggesting he was saying the Liverpool alibi was 'lies' but this is not the case. Hanratty always maintained he had been in Liverpool, but failed to mention his trip to Rhyl - the reasons for this have been stated many times on these boards so I'm not going to repeat them.

[OneRound]

Hanratty to criminal pal in Liverpool of broadly similar looks: ''I need an alibi for the Tuesday afternoon. Anything doing?''
Criminal pal: ''Afraid not. Could give you one for the Monday though when I was in a sweetshop.''
Hanratty: ''That'll do. They'll never remember what day of the week it was. Now tell me a bit more ....''

The above is pure speculation. However, it is not totally impossible.

Silver certainly makes a good point but, as with nearly all claims made by and on behalf of Hanratty, nothing is watertight as my possible scenario attempts to show. As Caz has previously emphasised, the onus is firmly on the Hanratty camp following the failed 2002 appeal.

[caz]

By stating that Hanratty 'changed his alibi to Rhyl' you are suggesting he was saying the Liverpool alibi was 'lies' but this is not the case. Hanratty always maintained he had been in Liverpool, but failed to mention his trip to Rhyl - the reasons for this have been stated many times on these boards so I'm not going to repeat them.

But Limehouse, Hanratty did change his alibi to Rhyl. His original story was that he was staying in Liverpool on the night of the A6 murder, ie he was there when the crime was actually being committed. For whatever reason he decided to change his whereabouts during these crucial hours to Rhyl, so one or other must have been a lie.

If he had no way of establishing his presence in either place overnight, when it mattered most, but had at least got the prosecution worried that his presence in Liverpool during the afternoon couldn't be shaken (how else could he have known "that someone resembling him had been in that shop asking for Tarleton road?"), he was handing the defence a vital tool with which to chip away at his ability to have reached the crime scene on time and pound that desperate "plane or helicopter" suggestion into dust.

By rights, a decent chance that he was in Liverpool that afternoon should have done the trick and provided all the reasonable doubt anyone could have wished for. But no - Hanratty himself decided that nothing about his Liverpool story was strong enough for that, or he wouldn't have felt the desperate need to change the overnight part to Rhyl, exposing himself to the jury as a liar in the process. After that, everything he had claimed about his whereabouts from the beginning was naturally thrown into doubt. An innocent man would have been crazy to destroy the best chance he had to put himself so far from the crime scene. A guilty one would have had no choice but to lie and keep on lying to the bitter end.

Love,

Caz
X

[Limehouse]

Yesterday, we drove down to Hemel Hempstead for a family party. The weather was sunny/cloudy and quite warm. I don't drive and so I rarely take any notice of where we are. As we swept down a hill with woodland on each side, I suddenly felt a cold chill creep over my body. I had a kind of dread feeling in the pit of my stomach. "Where are we?" I asked my husband suddenly. He replied "I should have thought you, of all people, would have known where we are. We are on the A6 and this is Deadman's Hill".

[OneRound]

Just to flag that the Hanratty case is the feature of ''Fred Dinenage: Murder Casebook'' on Tuesday 19 November at 9.00 pm in the UK on the CI channel. Doubt there'll be anything revelatory but might still be of interest.

[caz]

Hi OneRound,

If you watch this, could you possibly report back here if there is anything of particular interest? I don't know what the CI channel is but I don't think I can get it on my telly.

Thanks.

Love,

Caz
X

[OneRound]

Hi Caz - in case it helps, CI is the Crime & Investigation channel which is dedicated to matters of that nature. It comes as a freebie with my Virgin Media tv package (channel number 237) and, I believe, those of certain other providers. I only watch it occasionally - a lot of the programmes and crimes featured are currentish American which isn't much my cup of tea - but the odd thing can be of interest.

I'll certainly watch the forthcoming Hanratty programme (and will be happy to report back), although predominantly out of general interest than great expectation of something new.

Best wishes,

OneRound

[louisa]

Whilst I welcome seeing anything on TV about this case, the Fred Dineage Casebooks are mostly hot hair. He has his usual 'experts' making the kind of comments we would expect - then cut to Fred nodding in agreement. It's mainly a programme of talking heads with very little in the way of visual interest. Unfortunately Fred usually makes a very interesting case into a boring one because he misses out the relevant facts and pads out the show with waffle.

[JamesMac]

DNA contamination

A good day/evening to you all.

Having followed this thread for a while I was sorry to see that the debate had stalled, presumably because most of the issues had been played out. Whilst I cannot bring anything new to the table I thought that I would share my concerns regarding the DNA.

The 2002 Appeal judgment dismisses the likelihood of DNA contamination though admits that it was a theoretical possibility. The reasoning for this dismissal appears to be based on the following factors:

1) The knicker sample used for DNA testing had been excised by Dr Grant, acting for Hanratty, after his examination of various exhibits in late December 1961. According to the judgment

"a fragment of the excised portion was retained by the laboratory having first been placed in a small envelope made of cellophane and sellotape which was in turn put into a small brown envelope and the small envelope into a larger envelope before being treasury tagged to a laboratory file. It was so placed when rediscovered in 1991.
The file containing the fragment from the knickers was discovered in 1991 by Jennifer Wiles. It was still packaged as described except that the cellophane package was no longer intact. Also found in the file were some broken slides and slide holders possibly having contained hairs and fibres collected at the scene of the murder. There were also two polythene bags each containing hairs thought now to have come from Alphon. There was another polythene bag containing a number of bullets and significantly, so Mr Mansfield submits, a polythene bag containing a small rubber bung and fragments of glass including a curved piece suggesting that the polythene bag had at one time contained a glass vial or tube.”

There was no staining to the envelopes to indicate that any of the contents of the glass vial had leaked through to the knicker sample and it seemed that, whilst the storage methods were far from perfect, any direct contamination was unlikely.

2) Hanratty's DNA was the only male DNA positively identified by LCN with Gregsten's presumably being inferred from the original attribution of the AB blood grouping.

3) If Hanratty were not the murderer any contamination would have to have wiped out all traces of the rapist's DNA, both in the case of the knicker sample and the handkerchief.

Whilst I can understand the reasoning I have doubts about the conclusions and set out those doubts below using the same numbering system:

1) Having experienced, in a small way, the working practices of archiving systems for legal firms holding sensitive data I would be amazed if this particular file remained unopened from the time it was placed there till the time it was re-discovered in 1991. Given the notoriety of this case I am as sure as I can be that the file would have been opened many times as record clerks or lab technicians wiled away a quiet afternoon looking through the exhibits of such a famous case. Trusted visitors would have been shown the bullets and other items in the same way that museum staff would show off their prize exhibits. The fact that just part of the glass vial remained seems to suggest that other parts had been cleaned away. Any damage or spillage from inappropriate handling could easily have taken place outside the file and, if necessary, fresh envelopes obtained to replace any so damaged. The cellophane and sellotape container for the fragment was of course no longer intact when found lending credence to the idea that the file and contents had been examined, perhaps many times.

2) and
3) I recall that one of the DNA papers quoted on this thread relating to mixed profiles mentioned something to the effect that female DNA was deadlier than the male and would, over time, degrade the male DNA. We have a mixed profile here and if any contamination took place later rather than earlier it seems to me to be quite possible that the original male DNA (both Gregsten’s and the rapist’s) had degraded to be replaced by the contaminated DNA from the semen wash from Hanratty’s trousers, if that was indeed what the vial held. So far as the handkerchief is concerned Hanratty did of course claim that it was his and a number of theories have been put forward regarding this though I will add one more in a further post.

None of the above conclusively demonstrates that contamination of the knicker fragment did take place though it seems to me a strong possibility.

JamesMac

[Limehouse]

Hello James, and welcome to the A6 threads.

It has been a relatively long time since any debate concerning the case has been aired on these threads due to various reasons but it is always good to see new faces and hear their views.

I think the points you raise above are very important and the idea that the envelopes had been replaced over the years has not really been considered here.

'Out there in the general community' (that's the best way to describe what I mean), because of the way this case is always reported, there is a kind of perception that the DNA in this case is cast iron and conclusive. It's as if people think a simple test was made on the material and that Hanratty's name lit up and a siren went off or something. They seem to think that, as in some other cases, a single, isolated DNA profile of Hanratty was lifted from the material.

As you describe, this was not the case.

And of course, there are many holes in the evidence offered by the police and prosecution to throw doubt on Hanratty's guilt.

Hopefully, this thread can be revived and the debate continue.

Kind regards

Julie

[JamesMac]

DNA Contamination

Dear Julie,

Thank you for your kind welcome.

The integrity of the exhibits is crucial to the question of possible contamination and I note from the 2002 judgment the following:

"Mr Greenhalgh, who saw the file and examined the fabric in 1995, told us that he considered the risk of contamination to the fabric to be very low. We quote from his evidence.
"As I examined the item, the piece of blue material from the knickers was in a sealed packet inside the two envelopes. I did not observe any damage to that packaging which I considered likely to be a risk of contamination. As far as I was concerned they were sealed, although the outer envelopes were not sealed there was no indication of any liquid damage on the brown paper envelopes, as might have been expected if a liquid sample had leaked onto them."

It is clear from the above that the envelopes were not sealed and the contents could have been extracted and replaced many times over the years. As already mentioned the judgment conceded that the cellophane package containing the knicker fragment was no longer intact meaning that the fragment itself could easily have been removed for examination by curious lab technicians or record clerks. If such an examination took place at the same time the vial was damaged there is an obvious line of direct contamination (spillage on to the fragment) or indirect contamination (via handling of both objects).

In the circumstances I consider that contamination is a very strong possibility.

James

[caz]

2) Hanratty's DNA was the only male DNA positively identified by LCN with Gregsten's presumably being inferred from the original attribution of the AB blood grouping...

...I recall that one of the DNA papers quoted on this thread relating to mixed profiles mentioned something to the effect that female DNA was deadlier than the male and would, over time, degrade the male DNA. We have a mixed profile here and if any contamination took place later rather than earlier it seems to me to be quite possible that the original male DNA (both Gregsten’s and the rapist’s) had degraded to be replaced by the contaminated DNA from the semen wash from Hanratty’s trousers, if that was indeed what the vial held.

Hi James,

Welcome to the boards!

As I understand it, three DNA profiles were obtained from the remaining fragment of knicker fabric: one positively identified as Valerie Storie's; one matching Hanratty's; and one - as you say - attributed to Gregsten presumably because of his AB blood group (and the evidence of the original blood typed semen staining).

If that is correct (and if I am not misinterpreting that part of the 2002 Appeal Judgement), Hanratty's innocence would seem to depend on an incredible piece of bad luck, in that only the group O rapist's DNA was degraded by contact with the 'deadlier' female DNA, while the male DNA deposited first by Gregsten managed to survive intact after the supposed contamination incident resulting in Hanratty's semen doing a perfect impression of the now missing rapist's.

None of the above conclusively demonstrates that contamination of the knicker fragment did take place though it seems to me a strong possibility.

Realistically though, the scenario you have proposed appears to be the only possibility if Hanratty wasn't the rapist, and it does seem one hell of a stretch, taking the Appeal Judgement in its entirety into account.

For those who haven't read all the salient details:

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2002/1141.html

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

'Out there in the general community' (that's the best way to describe what I mean), because of the way this case is always reported, there is a kind of perception that the DNA in this case is cast iron and conclusive. It's as if people think a simple test was made on the material and that Hanratty's name lit up and a siren went off or something. They seem to think that, as in some other cases, a single, isolated DNA profile of Hanratty was lifted from the material.

Do you have to be quite so patronising, Limehouse?

The 'general community' can read the Appeal Judgement the same as anyone else if the case interests them, and we can reach our own conclusions.

Love,

Caz
X

[Limehouse]

Do you have to be quite so patronising, Limehouse?

The 'general community' can read the Appeal Judgement the same as anyone else if the case interests them, and we can reach our own conclusions.

Love,

Caz
X

What I meant by 'out there in the general community' was people outside of this thread whose comments I have read following news reports. They may have, of course, read the Appeal Judgement but that is almost never referred to in their comments. Their comments are phrased in such a way as to suggest they believe a clean DNA profile was obtained. That is generally (but not always) due to the way the case is reported.