Mail's feature of 1999 on Hanratty by Roger Matthews

[Victor]

The scientists for the prosecution may have presented their DNA evidence as factual certainty but there is actually no proper basis for such a claim.

Hi Nats,

Yes I know, the DNA evidence is pretty conclusive so you have to tackle the player rather than the ball.

The possibility of contamination could not be eliminated, but the results obtained cannot be explained by contamination, because contaminant Hanratty DNA would have to somehow eliminate the rapist's DNA from the semen stained patch of underwear whilst simultaneously completely unaffecting the rape victim's DNA. If you can provide a mechanism for how this can happen then do so, otherwise I'm always going to consider it impossible.

KR,
Vic.

[OneRound]

... The possibility of contamination could not be eliminated, but the results obtained cannot be explained by contamination, because contaminant Hanratty DNA would have to somehow eliminate the rapist's DNA from the semen stained patch of underwear whilst simultaneously completely unaffecting the rape victim's DNA. If you can provide a mechanism for how this can happen then do so, otherwise I'm always going to consider it impossible.

KR,
Vic.

Hi Vic,

That's a highly succinct and damning post upon Hanratty.

Could though Hanratty's DNA have found its way there by contamination whilst the rapist's DNA was never on that small part of the underwear to begin with? I accept that might be regarded as the high watermark of possibility but can it be totally discounted?

Best regards,

OneRound

[GUT]

As I understood it the patch of panties tested was stained with semen. If that is correct it must show one or more people's DNA, if one it was Hanratty, if more than one the DNA test should have revealed such ie a mixed DNA result.

Thus the only conclusion the Court of Appeal could reach was that the DNA confirmed his guilt.

[Derrick]

As I understood it the patch of panties tested was stained with semen. If that is correct it must show one or more people's DNA, if one it was Hanratty, if more than one the DNA test should have revealed such ie a mixed DNA result.

Thus the only conclusion the Court of Appeal could reach was that the DNA confirmed his guilt.

Hi Gut
The pellet fraction showed a mixture of 3 persons. The FSS ascribed 1 allele to Valerie, some unknown number to Gregsten and the rest to Hanratty.
HTH
Del

[GUT]

Hi Gut
The pellet fraction showed a mixture of 3 persons. The FSS ascribed 1 allele to Valerie, some unknown number to Gregsten and the rest to Hanratty.
HTH
Del

Sorry Del

My post was unprecise I meant other than the two victims.

[Derrick]

Sorry Del

My post was unprecise I meant other than the two victims.

But with what reference to ascribe them with?

Just because 1 allele matches Miss Storie doesn't make it hers.

Nothing to reference the other alleles to Gregsten with.

Del

[caz]

Just because 1 allele matches Miss Storie doesn't make it hers.

Nothing to reference the other alleles to Gregsten with.

Del

Oh come on, Derrick. Miss Storie was raped; Gregsten was her lover and they did not park the car in that place to play scrabble when the gunman found them. Semen from two men with different blood groups was apparent on the rape victim's underwear when first examined.

The DNA results were and remain entirely consistent with a scenario in which the convicted man was the gunman and rapist, and moreover the samples tested (knicker fragment and hanky) showed no signs of contamination by any fourth party DNA, male or female.

Nothing much is either completely impossible or 100% certain, but this only needs to be beyond reasonable doubt.

Love,

Caz
X

[Derrick]

...Semen from two men with different blood groups was apparent on the rape victim's underwear when first examined.

No there wasn't. I've told you this before. The judgement is wrong. Lewis Nickolls only found O secretor seminal fluid on the knickers. No AB fluid was found at all anywhere. The only reference in Nickolls notes to group AB is when he tested Gregsten's own blood.

...The DNA results were and remain entirely consistent with a scenario in which the convicted man was the gunman and rapist, and moreover the samples tested (knicker fragment and hanky) showed no signs of contamination by any fourth party DNA, male or female...

There are alleles attributed to Gregsten. So until a reference profile of Gregsten is obtained to compare them with, they could be from the rapist for all anyone knows along with one attributed to Miss Storie.

Del

[caz]

Matthews:

In truth, there was little in my confidential report that would not have been available to a committed investigator at any time during the past thirty-seven years.

To me he is merely implying that he was able to make more of the available 'evidence' than any committed investigator before him, because he used his professional 'nose' to interpret it, string it all together and reach a personal conclusion that satisfied him.

He is practically admitting there is nothing in his report by way of new evidence that could prove beyond reasonable doubt that Hanratty wasn't physically capable of committing the crime.

There are trusted retired policemen who have pored over all the known facts about the Whitechapel Murders, and have convinced themselves - and many others - that they are right about who did or did not commit them.

Same old, same old?

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

No there wasn't. I've told you this before. The judgement is wrong. Lewis Nickolls only found O secretor seminal fluid on the knickers. No AB fluid was found at all anywhere. The only reference in Nickolls notes to group AB is when he tested Gregsten's own blood.

Sorry, Derrick. Telling me isn't enough. If you need more evidence of Hanratty's guilt, then I'm surely entitled to something more than 'I've told you this before' to convince me the judgement got this fundamental detail so wrong concerning the original description of the semen staining on Miss Storie's underwear, which was said to be consistent with Hanratty and Gregsten having had sex with her.

If you are right, this is huge! So why has nobody else - including Nats - made a right old song and dance about it, instead of trying to get blood out of a stone with those hopelessly unreliable and inconsistent Rhyl witnesses.

Love,

Caz
X

[Derrick]

...which was said to be consistent with Hanratty and Gregsten having had sex with her...

When did Gregsten have sex with her then?

[Sherlock Houses]

When did Gregsten have sex with her then?

A most pertinent question my dear fellow.

[caz]

Hi Derrick,

From section 113 of the judgement:

'The knickers arrived at the Metropolitan Police Laboratory (MPL) on 23 August 1961 where they were examined by Dr Nickolls, the director and his assistant, Henry Howard. They were found to be stained with seminal fluid in the area of the crotch and at the back for five inches upwards from the crotch. Vaginal fluid from Valerie Storie was also present. There were smaller quantities of seminal fluid of blood group AB assumed to have come at some earlier stage from Michael Gregsten.'

And from section 125:

'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.'

Can you explain how you know the judgement was wrong to state that smaller quantities of AB seminal fluid were present when the knickers were first examined?

Also, I would have thought it impossible that Miss Storie would not have read the judgement herself. She of course would be the person to know when she had last had sex with Gregsten and therefore to confirm or deny that his seminal fluid could have been present and DNA from it rightly attributed to him.

I trust you are not implying she would have held back any personal knowledge that would have undermined the findings or the judgement.

Love,

Caz
X

[Cogidubnus]

I've no knowledge at all of the lady's character, nor certainly any wish to blacken it...heaven knows she suffered enough...that she had the strength and will to simply survive says much for her, god knows...

Yet you must also be aware that some people, if they feel themselves backed into a tight enough corner, are quite capable of squaring the circle and compromising their beliefs to achieve what they either instinctively feel is the right result, or what they've been fed or pressured into thinking is the right result...

This is human nature...it is evident in a hell of a lot of witness statements in many "injustice" cases which have subsequently been revealed...many witnesses have been led, one way or another, to convince themselves that black is grey is white. Sad but true...

I'm not saying it is the case here...I'm only a beginner in these waters...but surely, bearing in mind the distinct differences in the descriptions of the attacker in the earlier statements to those made later, the clear evidence of her difficulties in picking out potential assaillants from ID Parades until being virtually fed a body, then you do have to ask yourself if it's a possibility....

With regard to the DNA. personally I have problems with Low Number DNA identifications anyway...I don't think the supposedly surefire nature of the evidence provided at the Enquiry would hold water today...even if the possibilities of contamination were ignored...the testing was decidely sloppy...why was it only assumed the other DNA identity was Gregsten...why wasn't it tied down tight? Could it have been because it suited the establishment to preserve the status quo?

You may laugh and dismiss it as a conspiracy theory, but look at the ridiculous and repeated assertions of the prosecution with regard to Birmingham, Guildford, Maguire, McKie and a score of other cases and you do begin to wonder...

All the best

Dave

[Victor]

Hi Dave,

bearing in mind the distinct differences in the descriptions of the attacker in the earlier statements to those made later,

That's the "saucer-eyes" saga or "blue-brown" bungle, and I don't buy it myself. It's the word of one witness against another; John Kerr vs Valerie. And Kerr is only working on heresay, he's telling Valerie that in her agony and confusion she distinctly told him the attacker had brown eyes. And he's the only person who got told that?

the clear evidence of her difficulties in picking out potential assaillants from ID Parades until being virtually fed a body,

She did 2 ID parades, and at the first her attacker wasn't present and she probably felt pressure from Acott to select Alphon, but he wasn't her assailant so she chose the person closest to Hanratty, but we don't have a picture of Michael Clarke so can't say how close that match was.

even if the possibilities of contamination were ignored...

which they specifically weren't ignored, they are highlighted and discussed in the judgment.

why was it only assumed the other DNA identity was Gregsten...why wasn't it tied down tight?

Excellent questions.

Could it have been because it suited the establishment to preserve the status quo?

Does it? With all the police corruption being investigated and found out at the moment - Plebgate, &tc. - it can easily be argued that they aren't tolerating dodgy dealings so why would they here?

KR,
Vic.