Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

A6 Rebooted

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • cobalt
    replied
    According to the appeal, Valerie Storie's slip was destroyed in May 1962, soon after the trial. Are you sure it was sent for testing for DNA?

    I assume the slip was not used at trial since it yielded no evidence then, same as the handkerchief. Yet the slip was destroyed and the handkerchief retained.

    Leave a comment:


  • OneRound
    replied
    Originally posted by OneRound View Post

    Just a few comments now about the DNA.

    Matters are set out by the Court of Appeal in paras 106 to 128 of their 2002 judgement (link in Caz's post #4282 above).

    For any newcomers to this thread (and it's great there are some), it's only right to flag from outset that Hanratty's family and legal team were originally very keen to use DNA findings in an attempt to establish his innocence. However, they challenged its integrity once the findings pointed more towards his guilt.

    It is also only right to declare up front that I am far more a scientific numbskull than an eminent scientist, of whom several convinced the Court of Appeal of his guilt. I am no position to say anyone was wrong but I do feel aspects of this part of the Court's judgement raise queries.

    Main aspects for me are as below:

    1. As well as Hanratty's DNA (he was a blood group O secretor), the Court also refer to DNA from the semen of an AB blood group secretor being shown to be on the fragment of Valerie Storie's knickers and ''attribute'' that to her lover Michael Gregsten. The Court could of course be right there but, nonetheless, I feel the ''presumption'' (another term used by the Court) should have been thoroughly checked. After all, the Court insisted on Hanratty's body being exhumed to check on the accuracy of findings for him. The contrast in approach between the two DNA findings is massive and to my mind just as much surprising. If the AB DNA had been cross-checked to Gregsten and found not to be his, that would have invalidated the DNA evidence totally. Admittedly, that is a big ''if''. However, in my opinion, the Court should have been relying on a thorough cross-check and not a ''presumption''.

    Something else which increases my unease in this regard relates to when Gregsten last had sex with Ms Storie. I believe she said this was several days before the murder. If that's right, it would seem to lessen the likelihood of it being his AB semen on the knickers. Odd.

    [I appreciate Del has strong views about the reported AB findings. My comments stem from the Court's judgement.]

    2. The Court regarded it as very damning for Hanratty that only his and Valerie Storie's DNA plus that ''attributed'' to Gregsten were located on the knicker fragment tested in 1997. The Court effectively took the view that if Hanratty's DNA got there through contamination and he was not the rapist, the DNA of another male (ie the rapist) would have had to have been there as well. As there wasn't, that meant Hanratty had to be the rapist. I follow the logic. However, what was being checked was only ''a fragment'' which had been cut away from the knickers for basic tests thirty-six years earlier following the crime and then reduced further in 1995 when another part was removed for initial and unsuccessful DNA testing. Could the rapist's DNA have been on the part that was removed in 1995 and destroyed when unsuccessfully tested? I obviously don't know but feel it's a fair question.

    3. At the 2002 appeal, Hanratty's legal team argued that the knicker fragment might have been contaminated as a result of spillage from a broken vial, containing a liquidised sample from Hanratty, stored and found in an envelope alongside it. A boffin with thirty years' experience told the Court he had never come across a vial containing contents to be stored in this way and, whilst acknowledging their own lack of scientific experience, the Court commented that it would seem strange to do so. Fair enough. However, wouldn't it have been even more strange to store an empty vial in this way?

    4. A fair bit of weight appears to have been given by the Court to the DNA findings of Hanratty and Valerie showing a ''typical distribution'' consistent with them having had sex. That does seem pretty damning. I would just like it to have been clarified whether the distribution would have definitely been different if Hanratty's DNA was as a result of contamination.

    5. Discussion about the DNA here usually involves the knicker fragment and/or the hanky. Understandably so. However, a third item was also submitted for DNA testing. This was one of Valerie Storie's slips upon which semen was identified immediately after the crime. No result was found from this DNA testing. Given Hanratty's DNA was readily identified on the knicker fragment, why didn't it show up on the slip? As I say, I'm no scientist but might it suggest the DNA on the knicker fragment got there through different means (ie contamination)?

    Having assessed the scientific evidence, the Court concluded that the possibility of contamination of the knicker fragment or the hanky was ''fanciful'' and of both ''beyond belief''. However, if you include the slip, only 2 of the 3 items tested are indicators of Hanratty's guilt. If you then doubt the knicker fragment (see particularly points 1 and 3 above re the unestablished AB finding and broken vial), that only leaves the hanky.

    6. The hanky. Caz's favourite. Again understandably so. That is very damning. Unless you buy into ideas of police corruption and manipulation of exhibits and evidence, the DNA findings prove that the hanky wrapped around the murder weapon was Hanratty's. Although that leaves extremely serious questions to be answered by Hanratty's remaining supporters, it does not actually prove he fired the gun that killed Gregsten, raped Valerie Storie or even hid the gun and hanky where it was found. We do know others had access to his laundry.


    Let me make very clear that none of the above points go any way to suggesting innocence on the part of James Hanratty, let alone proving it which was the aim of those who first campaigned for DNA use. I'm actually as sure as I can be taking everything in the round that Hanratty was guilty. I'm just not as convinced as some that his guilt was proved fairly at trial or that the DNA evidence almost forty years later (inevitably without the safeguards being taken which are now so mandatory) was so unanswerably conclusive.

    If things had been very different in a make believe legal world - in particular, Hanratty not being executed and still being alive, the appeal of 2002 being heard many years earlier but with DNA being used years earlier than it was and able to be brought to the appeal - I would have thought it fair and just for Hanratty to have been granted a retrial.

    Obviously that could not happen and didn't. I therefore remain uncomfortable that a man - even though I consider him guilty - on trial for his life did not get a fair hearing. This though is where the hypocrite in me comes out. If Michael Gregsten or Valerie Storie had been my son or daughter, hangman Harry Allen could have got any required help from me in an instant.

    With apologies for the length and best regards,

    OneRound

    Hi all - I'll treat the recent posts about the DNA as giving me an excuse to bump up this one of mine from the end of 2017. Interestingly or not, Caz and the hanky were getting a shout out then as well!

    As previously stated, the issues raised do not suggest innocence on the part of Hanratty but highlight why I wasn't as convinced as the Court of Appeal.

    Best regards,
    OneRound

    Leave a comment:


  • cobalt
    replied
    NickB,

    Not wanting to wander off to another case but Jean Langford said Tobin was NOT the man in the taxi to both Joe Beattie, the retired SIO of the case, and also Magnus Linklater, a well known Scottish editor and man of letters before her death.

    Leave a comment:


  • cobalt
    replied
    I’m more concerned with the cartridge cases found at the scene of the crime. The ones that were found under seats- in the Vienna Hotel and the bus- are not so helpful. If they could be tested and linked to Hanratty’s fingerprints then the case against him would be strengthened.
    Caz is as keen on the handkerchief as a sign of guilt as was Othello, and thinks that it already makes the link that I am asking to be established through cartridge cases. She may be correct but the role of the handkerchief has changed over time. From the appeal in 2002:

    “The handkerchief came to the laboratory on 25 August {1961} was screened for blood and semen and, none being found, seems to have been put to one side.”

    Put to one side but not destroyed apparently, since it was later discovered in 1997 and Hanratty’s mucus gave him away. That is what we are told but since the handkerchief was presumably never a point of issue at trial, it was remarkably prescient for it to be retained. Why retain a snotty hanky? All the more so when we are told what actually was destroyed in the aftermath of the trial:

    “Thereafter, on 9 April 1962, Hanratty’s suitcase and clothing were returned to his father and on 22 May 1962 Storie’s slips, her knickers and various samples were all destroyed.”

    I remain sceptical about how certain items are discovered years later in police basements and others have been lost or have degraded. Do the cartridge cases from the murder scene still exist for example or were they flung out as well? I ask as a sceptic who knows that DNA evidence is easily planted or can occur through contamination but that planting fingerprints without a corpse is well nigh impossible.

    Leave a comment:


  • NickB
    replied
    Well the unused cartridges (and gun of course) were wrapped in a handkerchief with Hanratty's DNA. You can counter this by saying someone planted it to frame him; but you could not frame him with technology that didn't exist then.

    I see that the Wikipedia entry for Bible John ends with a claim that witness Jean Langford stated emphatically that Tobin was not him. But when you follow through to the source it says this came from her son Paul and ‘the rest of the remaining family discounts this claim’.

    (My post crossed with Caz's and was delayed while I was looking up about Bible John.)

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X