Mail's feature of 1999 on Hanratty by Roger Matthews

[caz]

Regarding the DNA evidence, I have to confess it is a bit over my head. Reading the 2002 judgement I can't get away from the fact that Hanratty's DNA was picked up and positively identified from the knicker fragment, along with Miss Storie's, in a pattern alleged to be consistent with sexual intercourse.

Both prosecution and defence seemed to accept Hanratty's DNA was indeed present, the only possibly innocent explanation being put forward as a potential contamination incident - not that the identifications/attributions themselves were in error or suspect.

If what you say is correct, it is beyond me why you are still here and not spending all your time and effort making your DNA concerns crystal clear to those who are qualified, able and willing to take them further and help get Hanratty's conviction quashed.

I'm afraid I can do bugger all about it.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

What discrepancy?

At the committal on 22nd November 1961, Dr Andrew Pollen, consultant orthopaedic surgeon at Bedford hospital said, in answer to questions from Mr Sherrard, that he asked her questions and she understood, giving remarkably clear answers. When he asked her about the rape she mentioned a gun; she was compos mentis during their conversation. The police later took a statement from her and she was quite capable of making that statement.

That would be Inspector Robert Morgan of Biggleswade division. The mucking fuddle you allude to is about the set of the man's eye's not the colour. In actual fact Valerie's description to DS Rees was of "brown eyes, not very deep set". But that's coppers for you.

HTH
Del

Hi Derrick,

Again, was Miss Storie ever asked by the defence to confirm that she had described brown eyes to DS Rees, or asked about the discrepancy after she picked out Hanratty?

I'm sorry but I can't recall how Hanratty's defence dealt with the issue, apart from unsuccessfully.

Clearly Miss Storie herself has remained adamant that she was able to identify Hanratty as her attacker once he was included in the line-up. I appreciate she picked out an innocent man first time round, but the pressure would have been huge not to let herself or the police down by failing to pick anyone out. And she could hardly have been expected to pick out her attacker on that occasion if he wasn't even there.

Love,

Caz
X

[Derrick]

I think the programme was made for Channel 4 by Blakeway Productions.

At the time of the Appeal, Valerie Storie gave an interview to the Mail on Sunday which appeared in the 5th and 12th May 2002 issues. Apparently the interview was conducted at her home with 2 senior Scotland Yard officers present and she donated the fee to charity.

Then there was her statement after the Appeal.

Cheers for those links Nick

ATB
Del

[NickB]

Unless anyone knows else, she has said nothing at all about the case since a documentary shown just after the 2002 appeal.
If anyone has a copy of that I would be interested to see it...I believe it is called Hanratty, The Whole Truth. Please PM me if you have it.

I think the programme was made for Channel 4 by Blakeway Productions.

At the time of the Appeal, Valerie Storie gave an interview to the Mail on Sunday which appeared in the 5th and 12th May 2002 issues. Apparently the interview was conducted at her home with 2 senior Scotland Yard officers present and she donated the fee to charity.

Then there was her statement after the Appeal.

[Derrick]

Has Miss Storie herself confirmed that she told Rees the man had brown eyes? What state was she in when this alleged discrepancy first came to light? Was she asked to make sense of it?

What discrepancy?

At the committal on 22nd November 1961, Dr Andrew Pollen, consultant orthopaedic surgeon at Bedford hospital said, in answer to questions from Mr Sherrard, that he asked her questions and she understood, giving remarkably clear answers. When he asked her about the rape she mentioned a gun; she was compos mentis during their conversation. The police later took a statement from her and she was quite capable of making that statement.

I seem to recall a (police?) spokesman making a right mucking fuddle of it when asked about the man's eyes, saying first one thing then hastily correcting it. But then the police would have been infallible when taking down or quoting from the statement of a very seriously injured witness, wouldn't they?

That would be Inspector Robert Morgan of Biggleswade division. The mucking fuddle you allude to is about the set of the man's eye's not the colour. In actual fact Valerie's description to DS Rees was of "brown eyes, not very deep set". But that's coppers for you.

HTH
Del

[Derrick]

...That could explain why the attribution was not confirmed, but I still think Miss Storie would have said something if they were alleging she had had unprotected sex with Gregsten and she knew otherwise. She knew what the judgement stated, even if it was wrong, so she would have been aware that two different men's semen was said to have been found on her underwear. If Gregsten's could not have been deposited there and she knew it, don't you think - as a woman - she'd have had some serious questions to ask about the evidence?

It seems Miss Storie was just being used to sure up the prosecutions case by way of a statement withheld by the Crown in the first place. Umm, nasty tactics there.

Unless anyone knows else, she has said nothing at all about the case since a documentary shown just after the 2002 appeal.

If anyone has a copy of that I would be interested to see it...I believe it is called Hanratty, The Whole Truth. Please PM me if you have it.

It would not have proved Hanratty innocent and destroyed Miss Storie's credibility in any case, since his DNA was present. At worst it would have rendered the DNA evidence unsafe, given the indication of a second unidentified male profile...

Really? That's interesting you should say that.

How could one possibly interpret a mixed profile from a LCN test when mixed profile interpretation under LCN hasn't and never will be validated? I'm not going over your head here am I Caz? Given your previous admissions of not knowing anything at all about the science viz the Harriman book, which I suggest you read.

But, as you say, it could never prove Hanratty's innocence, as such, but it would mean that his conviction would be quashed and then the presumption of innocence is then regained by the appellant! Good old Magna Carta as Rumpole would say, no doubt.

And everyone here, I'm sure, would agree that a retrial is unlikely!

Del

[caz]

Kerr said nothing of the sort. He said that Valerie told him he had light fairish hair, was about her height (5' 3 & 3/4") and had large eyes.

Valerie told DS Rees at Bedford Hospital the man had brown eyes. See the Hawser report for confirmation of this. Hawser dismissed this because Valerie never signed the statement! Yet the police used this description way beyond the first 48, so to speak.

Del

Has Miss Storie herself confirmed that she told Rees the man had brown eyes? What state was she in when this alleged discrepancy first came to light? Was she asked to make sense of it?

I seem to recall a (police?) spokesman making a right mucking fuddle of it when asked about the man's eyes, saying first one thing then hastily correcting it. But then the police would have been infallible when taking down or quoting from the statement of a very seriously injured witness, wouldn't they?

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Because I've seen copies of Lewis Nickolls bench notes and read his entire testimony at the trial. No AB semen found on any of the exhibits...full stop. The judges are either lying or were just not paying attention.

Seems Hanratty's defence team were 'just not paying attention' either then, or surely they would have pounced on any such potentially significant 'lie' or mistake with undisguised relish - some dozen years ago.

Instead we get today's defenders (present company excepted, Del) still gamely soldiering on with the less than credible Rhyl witnesses or general comments about potential contamination and/or corruption on the part of the authorities.

They need specifics, such as you are trying to provide, or sadly they will continue to get nowhere fast.

Also, Gregsten was an only child and his mother, Jeannie May was 68 in 1961 so she is unlikely to be alive today. And, they both may have been cremated.

That could explain why the attribution was not confirmed, but I still think Miss Storie would have said something if they were alleging she had had unprotected sex with Gregsten and she knew otherwise. She knew what the judgement stated, even if it was wrong, so she would have been aware that two different men's semen was said to have been found on her underwear. If Gregsten's could not have been deposited there and she knew it, don't you think - as a woman - she'd have had some serious questions to ask about the evidence?

It's all very well for others to suggest she may have allowed herself to believe it was the 'right result' when it wasn't, but she'd have known it was iffy if only one man's semen should have been present, which would make her deliberately dishonest for not speaking out. It would not have proved Hanratty innocent and destroyed Miss Storie's credibility in any case, since his DNA was present. At worst it would have rendered the DNA evidence unsafe, given the indication of a second unidentified male profile.

Love,

Caz
X

[Derrick]

...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?...

Kerr said nothing of the sort. He said that Valerie told him he had light fairish hair, was about her height (5' 3 & 3/4") and had large eyes.

Valerie told DS Rees at Bedford Hospital the man had brown eyes. See the Hawser report for confirmation of this. Hawser dismissed this because Valerie never signed the statement! Yet the police used this description way beyond the first 48, so to speak.

Del

[Derrick]

...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?...

Because I've seen copies of Lewis Nickolls bench notes and read his entire testimony at the trial. No AB semen found on any of the exhibits...full stop. The judges are either lying or were just not paying attention.

...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...

See:

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?p=291363#post291363

Also, Gregsten was an only child and his mother, Jeannie May was 68 in 1961 so she is unlikely to be alive today. And, they both may have been cremated.

Del

[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.

[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

[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

[Sherlock Houses]

When did Gregsten have sex with her then?

A most pertinent question my dear fellow.

[Derrick]

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

When did Gregsten have sex with her then?