A6 Rebooted

[Derrick]

...I wonder if these hairs were also tested?...

Hi Julie

No they weren't. The reason's given were that any extant hairs were without the follicles.

Only the 1cm square piece of knicker fragment and the handkerchief were dna tested.

Del

[caz]

I imagine that the fact they were able to pick up and identify Hanratty's DNA profile (and only Hanratty's) from his hanky would have acted as a control. There was never any dispute about this result, presumably helped along by Hanratty's own admission.

Therefore, since Hanratty's DNA on the hanky had not degraded in all that time; there were no contamination issues with this item; the knicker fragment had been stored for the same length of time; and similar methods were used for testing each fabric sample, these factors may have been taken as confirmation that the findings related to the knicker fragment (the major profile from the 'seminal' fraction being Hanratty's) were equally reliable - at least beyond reasonable doubt.

Love,

Caz
X

[Limehouse]

I imagine that the fact they were able to pick up and identify Hanratty's DNA profile (and only Hanratty's) from his hanky would have acted as a control. There was never any dispute about this result, presumably helped along by Hanratty's own admission.

Therefore, since Hanratty's DNA on the hanky had not degraded in all that time; there were no contamination issues with this item; the knicker fragment had been stored for the same length of time; and similar methods were used for testing each fabric sample, these factors may have been taken as confirmation that the findings related to the knicker fragment (the major profile from the 'seminal' fraction being Hanratty's) were equally reliable - at least beyond reasonable doubt.

Love,

Caz
X

I disagree Caz. The hanky had a much stronger DNA deposit and, apart from handling by testers and those who dealt with the exhibits in one form or another, there was no suggestion that anyone else had used the hanky in the way that Hanratty was likely to have done. It was also, as far as I know, a complete garment.

The knicker fragment, on the other hand, had (it has been suggested) three people's DNA in the form of bodily fluids. However, when the garment was tested, these deposits were mixed together and then separated out according to their individual DNA characteristics. (Sorry, I'm so scientist, so I cannot fully and accurately describe this progress, but I have read what has been described on this site). As has been stated many times, the knicker fragment was relatively small and the DNA extracted would not have been in the large amounts likely to have been lifted from the hanky and therefore may well have undergone a different process to extract enough DNA to test.

[Limehouse]

Hi Julie

No they weren't. The reason's given were that any extant hairs were without the follicles.

Only the 1cm square piece of knicker fragment and the handkerchief were dna tested.

Del

Thanks Derrick.

[Derrick]

...these factors may have been taken as confirmation that the findings related to the knicker fragment (the major profile from the 'seminal' fraction being Hanratty's) were equally reliable - at least beyond reasonable doubt...

We know what the Court of Appeal's ruling was and what it was based on Caz.

Don't you have any questions about why female dna should be found in a seminal (male only) fraction along with unknown alleles when all we have is the FSS's word for the make up of any major profile found and the data itself is being withheld from the appellant?

Besides, there isn't a MtDNA link between Michael Hanratty and the epithelial fraction from the knickers; there being alleles (the FSS said a minor profile) attributed to Hanratty in it.

Del

[caz]

I disagree Caz.

With what exactly? I was only trying to come up with a possible explanation for the conclusion that finding Hanratty's DNA on his hanky in addition to the knicker fragment made 'a strong case even stronger'. Not my words. I said that the factors I suggested may have been taken (ie by others) as confirmation of a reliable result in the case of the knicker fragment. I didn't say they were necessarily right to do so, because I, like you, am no scientist.

The hanky had a much stronger DNA deposit...

Strong or weak, Hanratty's DNA still showed up on both fabric samples and matched that of his exhumed remains. You really can't get much clearer than that. The defence were left clutching at the contamination straw to explain how Hanratty's DNA from his seminal fluid could have found its way onto the victim's underwear innocently, while the rapist's escaped the fragment entirely.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

We know what the Court of Appeal's ruling was and what it was based on Caz.

Sorry, Derrick. I thought the ruling was being queried in relation to why Hanratty's DNA turning up on the hanky was felt to be so significant, considering he had admitted it was his. I just thought it might not be so much the mere fact of it turning up, but more what the clear and unambiguous result suggested to them about the integrity of the storage and testing procedures overall.

Don't you have any questions about why female dna should be found in a seminal (male only) fraction along with unknown alleles when all we have is the FSS's word for the make up of any major profile found and the data itself is being withheld from the appellant?

Well I thought they found a DNA match with the victim, which is precisely what they should have expected from a sexual act producing seminal and vaginal fluid. Presumably these were mingled in the samples tested originally for blood groups.

Besides, there isn't a MtDNA link between Michael Hanratty and the epithelial fraction from the knickers; there being alleles (the FSS said a minor profile) attributed to Hanratty in it.

I'm not really up to speed on the science here, but I thought the point of exhuming Hanratty's remains was to see if a perfect match could be obtained, which didn't rely on other family members. And I thought that was what they did obtain.

Love,

Caz
X

[Derrick]

Hi Caz
My point is one that seeks to distinguish between two very different dna testing methods; nuclear STR dna testing (the one you hear about all the time) and MtDNA testing (mitochondrial dna testing).

The wider scientific community of dna experts recommend the use of MtDNA or YSTR testing instead of LCN in cold/historical cases due to their inherently stable sensitivity and reliable results.

MtDNA is inherited by all siblings from their mother and is passed solely by the maternal line. YSTR is the same for the paternal line.

Sorry, Derrick. I thought the ruling was being queried in relation to why Hanratty's DNA turning up on the hanky was felt to be so significant, considering he had admitted it was his. I just thought it might not be so much the mere fact of it turning up, but more what the clear and unambiguous result suggested to them about the integrity of the storage and testing procedures overall.

Fair point. But the hanky was stored separately from the knickers and is Hanratty's; it is matched, reliably, by MtDNA to his brother.

Well I thought they found a DNA match with the victim, which is precisely what they should have expected from a sexual act producing seminal and vaginal fluid. Presumably these were mingled in the samples tested originally for blood groups.

I will try and answer this and I hope I make some sense with regard to your question.
Taking your last sentence first, all I can say here is that the only blood testing that occurred was in 1961 on the already mingled fluids. No process exists to un-mingle bodily fluids/tissues that have already been deposited on an evidential sample. What existed in 1961 was all that the FSS had to go on in 1991 when the knickers fragment was rediscovered.

In 1995 Nigel Greenhalgh of the FSS performed a centrifugal process on the extracts from the knickers to separate the spermal (male) content (seminal or pellet fraction) from everything else (epithelial fraction) for purely DNA, not blood grouping, purposes.

The seminal fraction here contains an allele attributed to a woman (Miss Storie) and unknown alleles attributed to Mr Gregsten (without a reference profile to compare them to).

No MtDNA test was performed on this fraction.

But a MtDNA test was performed on the epithelial fraction (which was purported to have a minor profile attributable to Hanratty) and no link was found to exist between Michael Hanratty and the sample. So therefore any LCN DNA found is certainly not James Hanratty's.

This says that the more sensitive MtDNA testing suggests that there is DNA from a sibling of Michael Hanratty on the hanky but not on the knickers, despite the LCN results.

I'm not really up to speed on the science here, but I thought the point of exhuming Hanratty's remains was to see if a perfect match could be obtained, which didn't rely on other family members. And I thought that was what they did obtain...

But as you have seen (or researched yourself) that in cold/historical cases the use of MtDNA is a way more reliable indicator of identity.

I hope that I have made myself clear...but I know that you will come back with more Caz

Del

[caz]

Well congratulations, Del, you have certainly managed to blind me with science.

Since you believe so sincerely that the results were flawed and DNA from the knicker fragment was misidentified as Hanratty's, I'm worried that you are spending time on this site kindly trying to explain the science to me, when you could be taking it to higher authorities, who could presumably confirm what you say and get the ball rolling for a further appeal.

Have you actually tried to do this, or got any fellow DNA experts onside yet?

Love,

Caz
X

[OneRound]

... Only the 1cm square piece of knicker fragment and the handkerchief were dna tested.

Del

Hi Derrick,

Although the knicker fragment and the handkerchief have attracted all the attention, another item was actually dna tested - one of Valerie Storie's slips.

In para 106 of their judgment, the Court of Appeal confirmed that ''seminal fluid was found on Valerie Storie's knickers and one of her slips''. Having outlined the developments in dna analysis which resulted in further testing being commissioned in November 1997, the Court stated in para 108: ''The test was conducted on the small remaining piece of fabric from the knickers (part having been used in the 1995 experiment), a piece of material from one of the slips and the areas of staining from the handkerchief. This time the experiment did produce results in that profiles were obtained from the fabric and from the handkerchief which could be compared with samples taken from James Hanratty's brother, Michael, and his mother, Mary.'' As far as I am aware, the slip is never mentioned again.

I suppose the above means that nothing at all could be ascertained from the slip and it doesn't advance the debate. However, I would have liked that to have been spelt out. Those putting a pro-Hanratty spin on things here might at least claim that a slip containing the murderer's semen was dna tested and failed to show any connection to Hanratty.

This takes me back to the hanky and my recent posts. In para 126, the Court referred to the possibility of two items that were dna tested being contaminated as ''beyond belief''. The two items that the Court were referring to were of course the hanky and the knicker fragment. IF (big and important ''if'') Hanratty did admit at trial that the hanky was his (many thanks to NickB for his post on that matter), I don't see much significance to the dna testing of the hanky. Far more appropriate is the dna testing of the slip which didn't back up the findings on the knicker fragment.

Best regards,
OneRound

[Natalie Severn]

In fact -and as would have to happen were such tests conducted today-the prosecution should have listed ALL the DNA they found without focusing on what suited the prosecution case.
As we know the FFS tests were carried out in camera,by the prosecution , where the public were not allowed access.There was no independent oversight and no validation of their methods.By carrying out their tests in secret and destroying the evidence in the process, the scientific method was jettisoned since the cornerstone of scientific method is that it is repeatable : an experiment that can't be repeated is worthless.

[Derrick]

...I suppose the above means that nothing at all could be ascertained from the slip and it doesn't advance the debate...

Hi OneRound

You raise a very good point and I should have mentioned it but your supposition, detailed above, is quite correct. It was assumed as being blood from Miss Storie and, when tested, revealed her full dna profile alone.

Del

[Derrick]

Hi Julie

...The hanky had a much stronger DNA deposit and, apart from handling by testers and those who dealt with the exhibits in one form or another, there was no suggestion that anyone else had used the hanky in the way that Hanratty was likely to have done. It was also, as far as I know, a complete garment...

Strangely though Julie, the RMP that the FSS gave for the match to Hanratty for the hanky was 250 million to one. The FSS stated a RMP of 500 million to one for the knickers. Even more strange is that today, RMP's of 1 billion to one are quoted for partial profiles; using the same test kit.

...three people's DNA in the form of bodily fluids. However, when the garment was tested, these deposits were mixed together and then separated out according to their individual DNA characteristics...

Anything that is on the garment gets mixed. It is impossible to separate any DNA sample into individual contributors.
A mixed profile is any DNA profile where there is sufficient data to confirm the presence of two or more contributors.
The interpretation of LCN mixed profiles has not and never will be validated. Certainly not after the Reed appeal of 2009.
The CACD in 2002 upheld Hanratty's conviction, believing that a LCN mixed profile proved Hanratty guilty beyond reasonable doubt.

...As has been stated many times, the knicker fragment was relatively small and the DNA extracted would not have been in the large amounts likely to have been lifted from the hanky and therefore may well have undergone a different process to extract enough DNA to test...

The same protocal, LCN, was used in 1997/8 (subverting the first SGM kits), on both the hanky and what was left from the knickers from the STR/QUAD tests in 1995.

Any subsequent tests by Dr Whitaker in 2000 would have been LCN but would have used SGM+ as the starter kit, again using what was left over from the previous tests.

Hope that this helps
Del

[Limehouse]

Thanks Derrick. That's very helpful. I know that it's often implied that the scientists lifted a perfect and very distinguished Hanratty DNA profile from the knickers and it's clear from your explanation that this is far from the case.

[Victor]

By carrying out their tests in secret and destroying the evidence in the process, the scientific method was jettisoned since the cornerstone of scientific method is that it is repeatable : an experiment that can't be repeated is worthless.

Hi all,

Can someone please explain why Bindman's and others were clamouring for the 1st set of DNA tests when the above quote would have held whatever the results had been? The sample is destroyed by the test, everyone knew that was the case beforehand. In fact if the first set of tests had not been done, then there would have been more material available for standard SGM+ the 2nd time around!

In other words, if the DNA profiles produced had exonerated Hanratty then they would have been just as believeable, i.e., "worthless" according to Natalie?

KR,
Vic.