A6 Rebooted

[JamesMac]

DNA contamination

Dear Caz,

Thank you for your welcome.

The 2002 judgment does not seem to be very specific regarding other profiles bar Hanratty's. I understand that you can identify female DNA without going to the trouble of a full test and it may be that it was not felt worthwhile testing DNA which was obviously Valerie's. Similarly Gregsten's DNA may have been surmised from the blood grouping match from 1961. I have not read anything about his body having been exhumed or his family having been approached for samples though again I would not have thought that there was any need. If so it may be that only one male DNA sample was found.

I recall someone quoting a TV documentary wherein one of the scientists (Dr Mann?) was quoted as saying exactly that (that only one male profile was obtained) but he may simply have meant one additional profile to the known contribution from Michael Gregsten. Either way no "strange" profiles were found though this may not be surprising. Whilst I do not have much of an understanding of the details behind the science I did note from a paper on the subject that it is very difficult to identify individual DNA when you have a mix of three or more profiles, particularly where the samples are small. In this case there was an identifiable portion (Hanratty's) as well as a female portion (Valerie's) which may have made matters easier but whether or not other samples would merge to become undetectable I do not know. The paper referred to suggested that the difficulties encountered became worse over time and they were only referring to a few weeks, not forty years. If the exhibits were extracted from the files (and I think that they would have been on several if not many occasions) the resulting exposure to air would have greatly increased the likelihood of degradation of the original DNA. If the glass vial was broken much later than this it would explain why Hanratty's DNA remained whereas other contributions were undetectable.

All in all I think that contamination was probable rather than possible but I appreciate that any such contamination event could simply have added more of Hanratty's DNA to DNA of his that was already there. If so it would be yet another strange co-incidence in this complicated saga.

James

[caz]

The 2002 judgment does not seem to be very specific regarding other profiles bar Hanratty's. I understand that you can identify female DNA without going to the trouble of a full test and it may be that it was not felt worthwhile testing DNA which was obviously Valerie's. Similarly Gregsten's DNA may have been surmised from the blood grouping match from 1961. I have not read anything about his body having been exhumed or his family having been approached for samples though again I would not have thought that there was any need. If so it may be that only one male DNA sample was found.

Hi James,

Section 125 touches on this:

'With regard to the knicker fragment we have what Dr Whitaker would describe as a typical distribution of male and female DNA following an act of sexual intercourse leading to the obvious inference that the male contribution came from James Hanratty. For that not to be the case we would have to suppose that the DNA of the rapist, also of blood group O, had either degraded so as to become undetectable or had been masked by James Hanratty’s DNA during the course of a contaminating event. Moreover, we would also have to suppose that Valerie Storie’s DNA had remained in its original state, or at least detectable, and had escaped being overridden by DNA from James Hanratty. The same would have to be true of the DNA attributed to Michael Gregsten. Finally, we must visualise a pattern which is wholly consistent with sexual intercourse having taken place in which Valerie Storie and James Hanratty were the participants.'

While I agree there may have been an assumption that the female DNA came from Valerie (from the staining originally identified as vaginal fluid), in lieu of actual matching, the inference is that DNA from a second male was indicated, and considered reasonable to attribute to Gregsten.

It also seems unlikely that there was any 'spare' male DNA to attribute to anyone else, in view of section 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.'

While they could perhaps have allowed for the theoretical possibility that DNA from Alphon had degraded or been masked by Hanratty's, they would surely not have ruled him out unless there was no chance that the DNA attributed to Gregsten could have been Alphon's, and no indication of any unidentified/unattributed profiles. As you say yourself, no "strange" profiles were found.

I recall someone quoting a TV documentary wherein one of the scientists (Dr Mann?) was quoted as saying exactly that (that only one male profile was obtained) but he may simply have meant one additional profile to the known contribution from Michael Gregsten.

Yes, I have always assumed he was talking about the one 'suspect' profile, ie Hanratty's, otherwise it would not have made sense for the judgement to refer to 'the DNA attributed to' Gregsten.

All in all I think that contamination was probable rather than possible but I appreciate that any such contamination event could simply have added more of Hanratty's DNA to DNA of his that was already there. If so it would be yet another strange co-incidence in this complicated saga.

That's another good point. Even if it could be shown that semen from Hanratty's trousers had been stored on file (which is not a fact, but merely a hypothesis) and had come into contact with the knicker fragment through the packaging, it would not help much because the absence of DNA from any other potential suspect would still allow for Hanratty's semen to have been there in the first place as well, as a result of the rape. It would certainly not prove him innocent.

Section 120 suggests this contamination scenario (the only one that seems at least theoretically possible) is unlikely:

...a hypothesis in which the broken vial contained a solution of James Hanratty’s semen (extracted from the Hepworth trousers) which upon the vial being broken escaped in such a way as to invade the insecure packaging in which the fabric from the knickers was being kept. One of the respondent’s witnesses, Mr Roger Mann, who has thirty-two years experience as a forensic scientist, gave evidence that he has never come across a vial or tube containing liquid being retained on a file...

Love,

Caz
X

[JamesMac]

DNA contamination

Hi Caz,

Thanks for pointing out section 125. The comment regarding attribution appears to suggest that the FSS did not have a sample of Gregsten's DNA to confirm a match but assumed that it was based on an identifiable blood grouping profile of AB. I suppose it could also imply that the sample had degraded or was so small that a full match was not possible but again a blood grouping match of AB suggested that the sample was Gregsten's. The former seems more likely but either seems possible based on the wording.

The comments made by Dr Whittaker regarding a typical distribution of male and female DNA following an act of sexual intercourse are relevant though there were of course two such acts and it may be that the staining from the fragment simply reflects the first act not the second with there being a further distribution on a portion of the knickers which were discarded. I appreciate that we are talking about a fragment but I do not know whether this was really tiny or more substantial. I presume that the excised portion was fairly small (and it was then cut in two) but whether or not any significant staining remained on the knickers themselves is open to question. Given that the excised portion was presumably simply retained for corroborative purposes I cannot think that it would have encompassed all of the staining found.

I agree with your point about Alphon. The postscript exonerating him suggests that the FSS had received a sample from him to check. I cannot see how they could exclude him otherwise.

As far as the vial is concerned I agree that it would be a strange method of storage though I wonder what alternatives were available at the time. The vial clearly contained a liquid and the judgment conceded that it was possible that it had contained a wash from the Hepworth trousers. If it had contained a semen (or urine?) wash this would presumably have helped to prevent any degradation of the captured DNA until such time as the vial was broken. If the breaking of the vial did cause contamination the possibilities seem to me to be:

a) Hanratty's DNA superimposed on his own DNA left during the crime.
b) The rapist's DNA had degraded by the time the vial was broken so as to become undetectable.
c) The rapist's DNA was to be found on another portion of the knickers, since destroyed.

All best wishes,

James

[Limehouse]

Hi Caz,

Thanks for pointing out section 125. The comment regarding attribution appears to suggest that the FSS did not have a sample of Gregsten's DNA to confirm a match but assumed that it was based on an identifiable blood grouping profile of AB. I suppose it could also imply that the sample had degraded or was so small that a full match was not possible but again a blood grouping match of AB suggested that the sample was Gregsten's. The former seems more likely but either seems possible based on the wording.

The comments made by Dr Whittaker regarding a typical distribution of male and female DNA following an act of sexual intercourse are relevant though there were of course two such acts and it may be that the staining from the fragment simply reflects the first act not the second with there being a further distribution on a portion of the knickers which were discarded. I appreciate that we are talking about a fragment but I do not know whether this was really tiny or more substantial. I presume that the excised portion was fairly small (and it was then cut in two) but whether or not any significant staining remained on the knickers themselves is open to question. Given that the excised portion was presumably simply retained for corroborative purposes I cannot think that it would have encompassed all of the staining found.

I agree with your point about Alphon. The postscript exonerating him suggests that the FSS had received a sample from him to check. I cannot see how they could exclude him otherwise.

As far as the vial is concerned I agree that it would be a strange method of storage though I wonder what alternatives were available at the time. The vial clearly contained a liquid and the judgment conceded that it was possible that it had contained a wash from the Hepworth trousers. If it had contained a semen (or urine?) wash this would presumably have helped to prevent any degradation of the captured DNA until such time as the vial was broken. If the breaking of the vial did cause contamination the possibilities seem to me to be:

a) Hanratty's DNA superimposed on his own DNA left during the crime.
b) The rapist's DNA had degraded by the time the vial was broken so as to become undetectable.
c) The rapist's DNA was to be found on another portion of the knickers, since destroyed.

All best wishes,

James

Hi James,

A few points below might be helpful. I apologise in advance for the indelicacy of the subject and the explicitness needed to explain points.

As far as I can remember, I think someone posted here that the portion of knickers tested was 'the size of a postage stamp'.

It is known (through Valerie's statements) that the rapist asked her to remove her knickers before she was raped. This means that any staining is more likely to have been deposited in the crutch area when she replaced them.

In previous statements concerning the whole garment (her knickers) a forensic doctor stated that there was a considerable deposit of semen in a line up the back of the garment. (i.e., above the crutch area, where the buttocks would sit. My theory is that this was Gregsten's semen and that it was deposited in this way because they were using the withdrawal method to avoid pregnancy. This is also why the deposit was 'considerable'

I suppose it is relevant from which portion of the knickers the fragment was cut, although I imagine there would still be at least three profiles detectable on the portion.

Have to go now but may return to this point.

Julie

[caz]

Hi Caz,

Thanks for pointing out section 125. The comment regarding attribution appears to suggest that the FSS did not have a sample of Gregsten's DNA to confirm a match but assumed that it was based on an identifiable blood grouping profile of AB. I suppose it could also imply that the sample had degraded or was so small that a full match was not possible but again a blood grouping match of AB suggested that the sample was Gregsten's. The former seems more likely but either seems possible based on the wording.

Hi James,

Certainly, they must have been able to detect and isolate Hanratty's DNA profile from the rest, but they were also presumably able to establish the presence of only two other profiles: one female and matching Valerie's blood group at the very least; and one male, matching Gregsten's blood group. Any more than those three profiles showing up and that would prove the fragment was contaminated.

The comments made by Dr Whittaker regarding a typical distribution of male and female DNA following an act of sexual intercourse are relevant though there were of course two such acts and it may be that the staining from the fragment simply reflects the first act not the second with there being a further distribution on a portion of the knickers which were discarded. I appreciate that we are talking about a fragment but I do not know whether this was really tiny or more substantial. I presume that the excised portion was fairly small (and it was then cut in two) but whether or not any significant staining remained on the knickers themselves is open to question. Given that the excised portion was presumably simply retained for corroborative purposes I cannot think that it would have encompassed all of the staining found.

But surely if the only purpose of excising and retaining the fragment at all was to preserve the evidence of the group O semen deposited by the rapist, Dr Grant would have made sure this fragment had some group O semen on it, knowing there was also group AB semen present on the garment. Nothing else makes sense unless his brain wasn't functioning at the time.

The vial clearly contained a liquid and the judgment conceded that it was possible that it had contained a wash from the Hepworth trousers. If it had contained a semen (or urine?) wash this would presumably have helped to prevent any degradation of the captured DNA until such time as the vial was broken.

The problem I have with this is that again, the trouser sample would only have been retained, after Hanratty's execution, to provide confirmation that his blood group matched the rapists's, and at some time in the future they might be able to compare this 'control' with the knicker fragment again, this time proving the semen deposits came from the same individual. They were not to know then that a comparison would one day be possible using DNA from Hanratty's remains.

If they were trying to cover their tracks, in case the wrong man was hanged, they could simply have destroyed the trouser sample, so it could never be compared with the fragment and prove a mismatch. But if it was destroyed, for whatever reason (and the vial is a red herring), then Hanratty's DNA didn't contaminate the knicker fragment and he was the rapist.

Conversely, and paradoxically, if they did retain the trouser sample, it would show they had integrity concerning the evidence, which in turn would argue strongly against the two items being stored together, albeit in separate packaging. This wasn't the early 19th century. They knew the basics in the 1960s, regarding blood, saliva and semen samples from suspects being kept away from similar samples from the crime scene. So if they hoped to demonstrate one day that their retained control matched the rapist's semen and conclusively proved Hanratty's guilt, they would also need to demonstrate that the trouser sample and knicker fragment could not have come into contact at any time and contaminated each other.

In short, there would have been no point in retaining the items for future comparison purposes if they stored them in the same place.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Reading the relevant section of the judgement again, I see that while 'a sample from a seminal stain on the inside of the fly' of Hanratty's Hepworth trousers was indeed removed, the police only became aware of his blood group when the lab obtained blood and saliva samples four days after the trousers, and there is no actual evidence that the semen sample was ever washed out or retained in any form.

It was merely a 'suggestion' that it may have been, and may then have been stored in liquid form in that particular vial, close enough to the package containing the knicker fragment, so that when the vial later broke, its contents may have leaked onto the package without leaving any lasting signs of the spillage. If this could have been due to someone replacing the outer envelopes with dry undamaged ones after the breakage, but before the fragment was eventually rediscovered in the early 90s, why would they have left the remains of the broken vial there?

This is the fine thread of 'reasonable doubt' we are left clinging to - the only potentially innocent explanation for Hanratty's DNA on that fragment.

But how reasonable is it really, when examined under the microscope of probability?

Love,

Caz
X

[JamesMac]

DNA contamination

Dear Caz, Limehouse,

Thank you both for your considered and pertinent replies. The position seems even more complicated, if that were possible, than I had first thought but it does make me wonder what it was that was finally tested using the LCN technique. I confess that I have no real idea what form the testing in 1961, 1995 or later would have taken though I imagine that each subsequent test would be made on a fresh set of material rather than any piece used previously as any testing would presumably compromise the tested area with chemicals and render it less useful on a further test.

The knickers were apparently stained in the crotch area and for some 5 inches towards the back and Limehouse suggests that someone had mentioned that the finally tested fragment was the size of a postage stamp which would be less than one inch. If the fragment had been cut in two we are then dealing with a sample of approximately 1cm as against the originally stained area of at least 13cm. Given that there were two acts of intercourse and that Valerie may, after the rape, have replaced the knickers back to front (I would prefer not to go down the other proposed route) it seems reasonable to suppose that there would have been different mixtures at different positions.

The knickers were first tested shortly after collection and any such test would presumably have been made on the most significantly stained area. The second test took place in late December 1961 and I wonder whether the remaining fragment was taken from yet a third area of the knickers so that any future tests would not be compromised by the earlier testings. That fragment was of course then cut in half.

Whilst I cannot be sure that this did happen it seems to me to be a relatively logical way of proceeding giving rise to the possibility that the fragment was cut from an area which did not receive a deposit from the rapist. I cannot think that the fragment would have been tested in any way to ensure that it had part of the O blood group deposit on it as this would seem to negate the point of storing a pristine sample?

All of this is pure speculation but it does seem to me that there is a real enough possibility for contamination to have taken place (the fragment having been removed from its packaging and the glass vial being broken in close proximity) with that fragment having none of the rapist’s semen on it in the first place.

Much more possible than probable but sufficient perhaps to conclude that the DNA results are not absolute indicators of Hanratty’s guilt.

James

[caz]

The knickers were apparently stained in the crotch area and for some 5 inches towards the back and Limehouse suggests that someone had mentioned that the finally tested fragment was the size of a postage stamp which would be less than one inch. If the fragment had been cut in two we are then dealing with a sample of approximately 1cm as against the originally stained area of at least 13cm. Given that there were two acts of intercourse and that Valerie may, after the rape, have replaced the knickers back to front (I would prefer not to go down the other proposed route) it seems reasonable to suppose that there would have been different mixtures at different positions.

The knickers were first tested shortly after collection and any such test would presumably have been made on the most significantly stained area. The second test took place in late December 1961 and I wonder whether the remaining fragment was taken from yet a third area of the knickers so that any future tests would not be compromised by the earlier testings. That fragment was of course then cut in half.

Hi James,

My understanding from the 2002 Appeal Judgement is that the portion of fabric excised and examined by Dr Grant (a day after he examined Hanratty's trousers) was indeed from the stained area of the crotch, and thereafter this was stored separately from the trial exhibits and the rest of the garment. His examination of the trousers and knicker fragment presumably didn't show up any inconsistency between the two, although it isn't clear exactly what he was looking for or what he found. The blood groups of both semen deposits on the knickers (O for the rapist's and AB for Gregsten's more minor contribution) had already been established from the initial examination of the intact garment.

Although only part of the excised portion was retained following Grant's examination, it was still from the stained crotch area, and this is what eventually revealed the three expected DNA profiles (one female, two male), with the female DNA from Valerie's vaginal fluid and the male DNA from Hanratty's O group semen forming the typical distribution that would be observed after sexual intercourse. I would have thought the smaller the piece of fabric from the gusset was, the more likely it would have been saturated with the rapist's semen, while larger areas of the garment would have been devoid of any semen, or anything to test for, and were therefore destroyed. In fact, just five days after Hanratty's execution his suitcase and clothing were returned to his father, and the following month Valerie's slips, knickers and 'various samples were all destroyed'.

The only items known to have been retained (and DNA tested in the 90s) were a small portion of one of Valerie's slips, the remaining fragment from the knicker gusset (which runs from front to back on every pair of undies I have ever owned, including thongs, so wearing them back to front or right way round immediately after the rape strikes me as irrelevant) and Hanratty's hanky stained with his own mucous and nobody else's DNA present, which 'seems to have remained with the Bedfordshire Constabulary until September or early October 1997 when it was discovered in the course of enquiries made on behalf of the Commission. It was in the original envelope inside another envelope marked with the exhibit number ‘35’.'

With the best will in the world I cannot see how even the tiniest fragment of gusset is meant to have survived entirely uncontaminated by the rapist's semen and therefore his DNA, given what we are asked to believe about a hypothetical trouser wash migrating (but leaving no trace of its journey) through two sets of packaging, including a polythene bag and two envelopes, to contaminate the same fragment of gusset with a passable impression of full ejaculation! I realise that this must have happened in order for Hanratty not to have been the rapist, but then the rapist's DNA would surely have had no trouble at all migrating from one part of the gusset to contaminate the rest of it. So logically that would still make Hanratty the only possible suspect.

At the Whitechapel Society meeting on Saturday, the case was debated, with Jackie Murphy prosecuting and Bill Beadle defending. After their summing up and a question and answer session, everyone was invited to return a verdict of guilty or not guilty. It was to Bill's considerable credit that as many as 22 said not guilty, while Jackie won the day with 46.

Bill's arguments mainly concerned Hanratty's claims to have been elsewhere at the time of the crime, although it was pointed out that even Sherrard, his own barrister, decided against calling upon the testimony of Rhyl witnesses Walker, Vincent and Larman for the 1962 appeal. This was because their alleged sightings were contradictory and hopelessly at odds with Hanratty's claims about his own movements, which in turn did not add up timewise or transportwise.

Section 198 explains:

'It follows that statements from each of these witnesses were in the possession of James Hanratty’s legal advisers well before the 13 March 1962 when the matter came before the Court of Criminal Appeal. Following an article clearly critical of the way in which James Hanratty had been defended, in a letter to the Sunday Times dated 30 September 1968, his solicitor, without divulging matters covered by professional privilege, explained the reason for the decision not to seek to call that evidence before the court on the basis that the statements were not consistent with the evidence which James Hanratty had given. He went on:

“Quite apart from inconsistencies as to identification and detail (as well as some mutually contradictory features) there was no point in seeking to rely on the evidence of Mr Larman, Mrs Walker and Mrs Vincent because their statements (even without the test of cross-examination) did not match Hanratty’s evidence on the crucial issue of time. He could not have spoken to any of these people at 7.30 p.m. because his evidence on oath was that he did not leave Liverpool by coach for Rhyl until after 7.30 p.m. and that when he arrived at Rhyl it was late evening and dark. It was, of course, not dark at Rhyl at 7.30 p.m. That the statements in other respects did not find support from Hanratty himself added substantially to the difficulties.”

In his letter, Mr Sherrard added that, after the trial, he did see statements of Mr Larman and other potential witnesses which were considered for the purposes of appeal. He goes on to add that he need not rehearse the reasons for not seeking to adduce any of this evidence at the appeal.'

Love,

Caz
X

[JamesMac]

DNA/General

Hi Caz,

I appreciate all you say and agree that it would be stretching anyone’s credibility to imagine that the contents of the glass vial (even if it did contain any of Hanratty’s DNA) could migrate through two envelopes and a sellotaped polythene wrapper without leaving any discernible trace. What I was suggesting was that any contamination might have occurred when the knicker fragment was removed from its packaging within the lab by bored technicians or record clerks (the large envelope was simply treasury tagged to the file, neither the large nor small envelope was apparently sealed, at least when found, and the sellotaped polythene containing the fragment was no longer intact when discovered by Jennifer Wiles). It seems to me to be possible that the glass vial was broken and either leaked on to the envelopes when both had been extracted from the file (with the envelopes then being replaced) or that the leakage could have occurred after the fragment had been removed from its packaging (for reasons of curiosity) with any contamination therefore being direct.

For Hanratty not to have been the rapist the rapist’s DNA would have to have degraded, been masked by contaminating substances or, perhaps, not have been on that particular part of the crotch area in the first place? Given that only one small fragment of the crotch area remained and that the other tests (2 in 1961 and 1 in 1995) presumably utilised the more substantial areas of staining I wonder whether the rapist’s DNA signature was to be found elsewhere but not on that particular fragment?

I note all you say about knickers, crotches and thongs and confess that this is not an area of expertise for me. Neither do I know anything about the way in which mixtures of vaginal fluid and semen deposit themselves though it seems logical to assume that the deposits from two separate acts at slightly different times would not necessarily blend into one uniform soup and that different parts of the crotch would have differing concentrations of staining. Add to this the fact that the final tests could only obtain a result via LCN leads me to conclude that the finally available sample was very small indeed and that the DNA attributions for Valerie Store and Michael Gregsten could, possibly, have come from an area of the knickers untainted by the rapist’s DNA.

The combination of events is perhaps unlikely but then so much about this case seems unlikely or strangely co-incidental that I do not think that one can rule it out altogether and certainly not quite as confidently as the Appeal Court judgment did.

Incidentally I was intrigued to hear about the Whitechapel discussion and the vote of 46 to 22. The defence must have been quite impressive. I confess that I am not entirely confident one way or the other so would probably vote not guilty. Much of the evidence seems to me to be equivocal but my main reason for doubt, leaving aside my uncertainty regarding the DNA, is the lack of any incriminating evidence from the car. Fingerprints, fibres, hairs, blood and cartridge cases do appear to have been found (and so it seems doubtful that any cleaning could have taken place) but nothing to connect to Hanratty. Whilst I appreciate that this was a different age in terms of forensic examination I still find it most surprising.

Best wishes,

James

[caz]

Hi Caz,

I appreciate all you say and agree that it would be stretching anyone’s credibility to imagine that the contents of the glass vial (even if it did contain any of Hanratty’s DNA) could migrate through two envelopes and a sellotaped polythene wrapper without leaving any discernible trace. What I was suggesting was that any contamination might have occurred when the knicker fragment was removed from its packaging within the lab by bored technicians or record clerks (the large envelope was simply treasury tagged to the file, neither the large nor small envelope was apparently sealed, at least when found, and the sellotaped polythene containing the fragment was no longer intact when discovered by Jennifer Wiles). It seems to me to be possible that the glass vial was broken and either leaked on to the envelopes when both had been extracted from the file (with the envelopes then being replaced) or that the leakage could have occurred after the fragment had been removed from its packaging (for reasons of curiosity) with any contamination therefore being direct.

Hi James,

I appreciate all you say too, but don't forget the glass vial had also been kept on file in its own polythene bag, in which the broken pieces were found. I can't see why anyone would have transferred the vial intact, let alone in small pieces, to a new polythene bag, in which case any liquid would still have had to leak out of that original polythene bag, leaving no trace, even if what you say about the knicker fragment being subsequently repackaged by prying eyes is feasible. I'm not sure what the curiosity value would be, however, in that remaining fragment, if it really was such a tiny scrap.

For Hanratty not to have been the rapist the rapist’s DNA would have to have degraded, been masked by contaminating substances or, perhaps, not have been on that particular part of the crotch area in the first place? Given that only one small fragment of the crotch area remained and that the other tests (2 in 1961 and 1 in 1995) presumably utilised the more substantial areas of staining I wonder whether the rapist’s DNA signature was to be found elsewhere but not on that particular fragment?

I suppose it's all theoretically possible, but I don't really see why the remaining fragment from the gusset would have yielded significantly less semen than the rest of it, never mind no trace at all. I would imagine Dr Grant excised a portion that was entirely saturated, so that even the tiniest part of it could be used for testing and comparison purposes. And again, I can't get my head round the idea that this fragment could have escaped DNA from the rapist, which would have been all over the material immediately surrounding it, in the form of semen from a full ejaculation, if it was so easy for Hanratty's DNA, from a diluted wash of a much tinier sample from his trouser fly, to have made the journey from the vial and through its polythene bag to contaminate the fragment with a clear profile that suggested an act of intercourse with the owner of the knickers.

Add to this the fact that the final tests could only obtain a result via LCN leads me to conclude that the finally available sample was very small indeed and that the DNA attributions for Valerie Store and Michael Gregsten could, possibly, have come from an area of the knickers untainted by the rapist’s DNA.

LCN has been justifiably criticised as a method, presumably because of the risk that any contamination, however minor, is likely to show up and make the results inconclusive at best and unreliable at worst. But we know that the hanky only yielded the one clear profile - Hanratty's, and only from the area of mucous staining - so if anyone else had handled it, or hidden it on the bus with the murder weapon for instance, they were either careful to wear gloves the whole time or their DNA had degraded to the point where even LCN couldn't find it. If the hanky or the knicker fragment had even hinted at any further, unidentified profiles, the argument against LCN would have become very relevant indeed, and made the findings unsafe. But the result from the hanky, and the three expected profiles from the knickers - no more, no less - does suggest to me that the testing method was sound in this particular case.

Much of the evidence seems to me to be equivocal but my main reason for doubt, leaving aside my uncertainty regarding the DNA, is the lack of any incriminating evidence from the car. Fingerprints, fibres, hairs, blood and cartridge cases do appear to have been found (and so it seems doubtful that any cleaning could have taken place) but nothing to connect to Hanratty. Whilst I appreciate that this was a different age in terms of forensic examination I still find it most surprising.

Yes, this lack of incriminating evidence from the car crops up quite often in these discussions. While it may be surprising, it doesn't actually help Hanratty much, because the same problem would apply if anyone else had been the gunman and rapist. If the police had wanted to fit anyone up for the crime, they could presumably have planted intimate samples in the car, but they didn't, and that would have applied as much to Alphon as to Hanratty.

For what it's worth, I doubt Hanratty meant to shoot Gregsten dead. He had already been in the car, chatting to the couple, for six hours (which makes it highly doubtful that Valerie could have been mistaken when she heard that voice again during the second line-up), and by all accounts the gun would have been a new toy for him, both thrilling and frightening. Once the deed was done, however, there was no going back, which might explain why he went on to rape Valerie before shooting her, knowing he could not afford to leave a witness. His inexperience showed when he could have pumped more bullets into her and made sure she was dead, but failed to do so before driving off.

Love,

Caz
X

[JamesMac]

DNA/General

Hi Caz,

My comments regarding the glass vial were in part prompted by the Appeal Court judgment wherein it was stated that

“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.”

The reference is not entirely clear but suggests to me that some of the glass vial had gone AWOL as there is only one curved piece mentioned. Whilst the remainder of the vial may have shattered so completely that it was unrecognisable the potential absence of part of the vial lends some credence to the possibility that the vial had been removed from the polythene bag before being broken. Had this happened I think that the offender would have been mortified and hurriedly put back what he or she could before sweeping the rest into the bin! As far as the curiosity value is concerned I think that anyone who had decided to look through the file would take a few moments to check all of the contents relating to such a high profile case notwithstanding, or perhaps because of, its somewhat indelicate nature.

I think that the point about the lack of any recoverable DNA from the rapist as opposed to Hanratty (if he was not the rapist) is that the rapist’s DNA had a much larger original area to cover whereas any contamination from the glass vial would have been limited to contact with just the fragment itself rather than the whole crotch area. As to the excised portion being entirely saturated this may not have been the case given that, presumably, the best samples were tested first.

Your point about the lack of any other DNA on the handkerchief is an interesting one though I note that the test result for the handkerchief matched Hanratty at a much lower level of probability which seems to suggest that some degree of degradation must have taken place and thus any contact DNA would have proved difficult to identify. Whilst the knicker fragment and the handkerchief were held in separate locations it does not appear that they were stored in anything like ideal conditions and that some degradation would likely have occurred as a result. How much and whether or not the degradation would have been significant is another matter.

On the question of the lack of evidence from the car I am not quite so sure that it does not benefit Hanratty’s case. My understanding is that material was found (fingerprints, fibres etc.) but none that could be linked to Hanratty or, presumably, Alphon. If the perpetrator was someone else entirely there may well have been some evidence in the car but it was never capable of being matched to anyone.

Best wishes,

James

[Limehouse]

On the question of the lack of evidence from the car I am not quite so sure that it does not benefit Hanratty’s case. My understanding is that material was found (fingerprints, fibres etc.) but none that could be linked Hanratty or, presumably, Alphon. If the perpetrator was someone else entirely there may well have been some evidence in the car but it was never capable of being matched to anyone.

Best wishes,

James

I feel strongly that, if any evidence had been found in the car that could have been attributed to Alphon or Hanratty, those cartridge cases would never have been 'discovered' in the hotel room.

[caz]

Hi Limehouse,

When do you suppose the cartridge cases were left in the hotel room, and by whom? If not Hanratty, it would presumably have had to be someone who knew he stayed in that particular room and was trying to frame him - someone with access to the cases and therefore connected to the crime somehow. Also, did those cases lead directly to Hanratty being sought by the police, or was he initially sought due to something else, and then his hotel room was searched?

I'm just trying to work out the logistics and timing here. Do you think the real gunman (Alphon or A.N.Other) could have planted the cartridge cases, and if so, would they have known it was Hanratty they were incriminating, and whether the police were onto him for other reasons?

Enjoy your Christmas - and James - and I look forward to carrying on the discussion in due course.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Hi again,

I have just re-read the relevant passages from the Appeal Judgement:

'On 11 September 1961... two cartridge cases were found in room 24 at the Vienna Hotel... it was later established scientifically that they had been fired from the murder weapon... ...James Hanratty had spent the night of 21/22 August 1961 in room 24... He had used the name of “J Ryan” of 72 Wood Lane, Kingsbury... Further, it is also important to underline that the spent cartridges were discovered before James Hanratty had featured in the investigation: it was their presence in room 24 that caused the police to seek to identify the “J Ryan”...

...In their search for “J Ryan”, on 25 September 1961, the police received information from a man who had written postcards for Mr J Ryan who was then visiting Ireland; one of the postcards was addressed to Mrs Hanratty, the mother of James Hanratty. Thus, for the first time, the police turned their attention to him.'

So it would appear that if Hanratty was an innocent patsy, the real gunman must have planted the two spent cartridge cases in the room stayed in by "J Ryan". The police didn't find the gun and ammunition on the bus - someone else did. So that evidence had to be kept intact. The police didn't find the cartridge cases in the room - others did. So the police can't have planted the cases in room 24. That leaves only someone with access to the gun before it was left on the bus. How did that person, if not Hanratty, know where to plant the cases, in order to incriminate "J Ryan", who would turn out to be a petty criminal with the right blood group, no alibi and would be positively identified by the surviving victim?

Love,

Caz
X

[JamesMac]

Hi Caz, Limehouse,


With apologies to Limehouse I confess that I have never really subscribed to the view that any of the evidence was planted. Whilst I have a number of doubts concerning the way in which the evidence was found and collected I do not think that there was any great master plan to incriminate Hanratty or Alphon. On the other hand I believe that there are alternative scenarios which meet the known facts though none can really now be tested. In essence these all revolve around the same themes with one of the variations being as follows:

1) Hanratty stays at the Vienna on 22nd August but leaves a hanky in the room on his departure.
2) William Nudds had been released from Oxford prison in 1958. The murderer is quoted by Valerie Storie as having spent “time” in the Oxford area which could mean that he was in Oxford prison at the same time as Nudds and, being a small prison, they would undoubtedly have known each other. If so Nudds could well have provided a cheap “off the books” room for the murderer on the 23rd August (or have provided one under duress) and also have a very good reason for implicating Alphon or Ryan instead of his “mate” who was obviously a very dangerous character.
3) The murderer occupies room 24 at the Vienna on the night of the 23rd August, empties the gun and leaves two shell casings in the chair in the alcove. He disposes of the gun and bullets on the 36a bus the following day, either because this is a standard place for criminals to dispose of rubbish or because this was an agreed method for collecting and returning such dangerous material without physical contact between supplier and user. In doing so he wraps the gun in the hanky he has found in room 24 at the Vienna.
4) Nudds has enormous experience of providing false tales and proceeds to do on this occasion, firstly incriminating the last known occupant according to the hotel register and then switching back and forth when he judges that the police require a different version. Above all he is anxious to preserve himself from any retribution.

A slight modification to the above could have Nudds supplying the weapon. Upon its return he retires to the empty room 24 to check it and cleans it with the handkerchief he finds there. Thereafter he disposes it on a bus, possibly deliberately or perhaps in panic at the sight of someone in uniform.

I am not suggesting that these events happened, more that these are possibilities which do not seem to have been properly investigated.

A very happy New Year to you both.

James Mac