Casebook: Jack the Ripper - Main
   

Introduction
Victims
Suspects
Witnesses
Ripper Letters
Police Officials
Official Documents
Press Reports
Victorian London
Message Boards
Ripper Media
Authors
Dissertations
Timelines
Games & Diversions
Photo Archive
Ripper Wiki
Casebook Examiner
Ripper Podcast
About the Casebook

Most Recent Posts:
Hutchinson, George: Any updates, or opinions on this witness. - by Darryl Kenyon 35 minutes ago.
Hutchinson, George: Any updates, or opinions on this witness. - by Darryl Kenyon 37 minutes ago.
Hutchinson, George: Any updates, or opinions on this witness. - by Wickerman 2 hours ago.
Hutchinson, George: Any updates, or opinions on this witness. - by Abby Normal 2 hours ago.
Hutchinson, George: Any updates, or opinions on this witness. - by Wickerman 2 hours ago.
Hutchinson, George: Any updates, or opinions on this witness. - by Wickerman 2 hours ago.

Most Popular Threads:
Hutchinson, George: Any updates, or opinions on this witness. - (18 posts)
Non-Fiction: The Mysterious Fred - (3 posts)
Casebook Announcements: Katherine Bradshaw Amin (1980-2018) - (3 posts)
Visual Media: "Mysteries at the Museum" features JtR Museum - (1 posts)
Shades of Whitechapel: Dennis Nilsen - (1 posts)
General Suspect Discussion: Kansas Physician Confirms Howard Report - (1 posts)

Wiki Updates:
Robert Sagar
Edit: Chris
May 9, 2015, 12:32 am
Online newspaper archives
Edit: Chris
Nov 26, 2014, 10:25 am
Joseph Lawende
Edit: Chris
Mar 9, 2014, 10:12 am
Miscellaneous research resources
Edit: Chris
Feb 13, 2014, 9:28 am
Charles Cross
Edit: John Bennett
Sep 4, 2013, 8:20 pm

Most Recent Blogs:
Mike Covell: A DECADE IN THE MAKING.
February 19, 2016, 11:12 am.
Chris George: RipperCon in Baltimore, April 8-10, 2016
February 10, 2016, 2:55 pm.
Mike Covell: Hull Prison Visit
October 10, 2015, 8:04 am.
Mike Covell: NEW ADVENTURES IN RESEARCH
August 9, 2015, 3:10 am.
Mike Covell: UPDDATES FOR THE PAST 11 MONTHS
November 14, 2014, 10:02 am.
Mike Covell: Mike’s Book Releases
March 17, 2014, 3:18 am.

Go Back   Casebook Forums > Social Chat > Other Mysteries > A6 Murders

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #4641  
Old 03-21-2018, 01:47 PM
cobalt cobalt is offline
Detective
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 278
Default

No aplogies required OR.

That was as concise a summary of the concerns about the DNA evidence as one could ever expect to come across. (I appreciate that the controversy over Low Copy DNA was not in your remit.)

I think you have established that the DNA evidence is indicative of Hanratty's guilt, but not actually as conclusive as the CofA seemed to believe.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #4642  
Old 03-21-2018, 02:44 PM
Spitfire Spitfire is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 613
Default

Quote:
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.
Whereas the Court of Appeal said in paragraph 113 of its judgement

Quote:
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.
The seminal AB stains were found in 1961 on the knickers. As this fact did not find its way into the public evidence at the trial or into any of the subsequent books, folk have assumed that it was only discovered in the late 1990s. My understanding is that the AB staining was known in 1961 and that the fragment of the knickers was taken so that only the O secretor stains were sampled.

Last edited by Spitfire : 03-21-2018 at 02:48 PM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #4643  
Old 03-21-2018, 03:10 PM
OneRound OneRound is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 500
Default

Hi Spitfire - we are still left with only a presumption that the seminal AB stains came from Gregsten and uncertainty as to how and when they got there. I continue to find that unsatisfactory.

Best regards,

OneRound
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #4644  
Old 03-21-2018, 03:24 PM
Spitfire Spitfire is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 613
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by OneRound View Post
Hi Spitfire - we are still left with only a presumption that the seminal AB stains came from Gregsten and uncertainty as to how and when they got there. I continue to find that unsatisfactory.

Best regards,

OneRound

I am not sure what anyone could have done about it in the Court of Appeal.

The knickers (except the fragment excised therefrom) and the AB stains would have been destroyed after the trial in 1962. Fortunately, the fragment was preserved and the O secretor rapist was shown to be Hanratty.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #4645  
Old 03-21-2018, 03:38 PM
moste moste is offline
Detective
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Vancouver Island British Columbia.
Posts: 472
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by OneRound View Post
Hi Spitfire - we are still left with only a presumption that the seminal AB stains came from Gregsten and uncertainty as to how and when they got there. I continue to find that unsatisfactory.

Best regards,

OneRound
We don't know, do we, what blood group Gregsten was?
Maybe the AB semen came from the chap that Valerie hung around with when not seeing Mike.
In any event, I think if we could pick the brains of a bona fida, totally impartial, DNA expert, we would be 'set straight' on the usefulness of any and all DNA found in the Pandora's box wherein lay the A6 murders exhibits! regardless of who called for the test.
Again.. the DNA was a means to an end for the establishment and associated authorities to GET the damn monkey off their backs , once and for all. It worked wonderfully.

Last edited by moste : 03-21-2018 at 03:45 PM. Reason: add sentence.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #4646  
Old 03-21-2018, 03:53 PM
Spitfire Spitfire is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 613
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by moste View Post
We don't know, do we, what blood group Gregsten was?
Not sure who the “we” are, but anyone who has read paragraph 76 of the judgement of the Court of Appeal knows that Michael Gregsten was group AB.

Quote:
Maybe the AB semen came from the chap that Valerie hung around with when not seeing Mike.
What unpleasant and unnecessary remark and like most of your comments on this case, one without any foundation in fact.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #4647  
Old 03-21-2018, 05:34 PM
OneRound OneRound is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 500
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spitfire View Post
I am not sure what anyone could have done about it in the Court of Appeal.

The knickers (except the fragment excised therefrom) and the AB stains would have been destroyed after the trial in 1962. Fortunately, the fragment was preserved and the O secretor rapist was shown to be Hanratty.
Hi again Spitfire - my reading of the Court's 2002 judgement (particularly para 125) is that the AB stains were on the knicker fragment tested in 1997. On that basis, I consider that checks could and should have been carried out to verify the presumption that these stains came from Gregsten.

Whilst I believe the presumption would have been verified, the potential significance was and remains huge. If these stains do not tally with Gregsten, that would be strong evidence of another man or, at the least, contamination and the whole of the DNA case against Hanratty would collapse like a house of cards in a cyclone.

Best regards,

OneRound
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #4648  
Old 03-21-2018, 09:32 PM
moste moste is offline
Detective
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Vancouver Island British Columbia.
Posts: 472
Default

Whilst I believe the presumption would have been verified, the potential significance was and remains huge. If these stains do not tally with Gregsten, that would be strong evidence of another man or, at the least, contamination and the whole of the DNA case against Hanratty would collapse like a house of cards in a cyclone.

HI OR. Quite well put.

Do you not think though, that if the presumption was verified in the negative, we would not have got to know about it anyway?
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #4649  
Old 03-21-2018, 09:45 PM
Spitfire Spitfire is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 613
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by OneRound View Post
Hi again Spitfire - my reading of the Court's 2002 judgement (particularly para 125) is that the AB stains were on the knicker fragment tested in 1997. On that basis, I consider that checks could and should have been carried out to verify the presumption that these stains came from Gregsten.

Whilst I believe the presumption would have been verified, the potential significance was and remains huge. If these stains do not tally with Gregsten, that would be strong evidence of another man or, at the least, contamination and the whole of the DNA case against Hanratty would collapse like a house of cards in a cyclone.

Best regards,

OneRound
OR,

You are right. This is what Mr Sweeney QC for the Crown said when addressing the Court of Appeal on 22 April 2002.

Quote:
In the seminal fraction, there are a major profile and some minor pieces. The major profile, again in yellow, matching the appellant's DNA profile. The seminal fraction, minor profile, having a small number of readings in red and one in blue, as your Lordships can see. Insofar as the blue one is concerned, that is a match with Miss Storie. Insofar as the red one is concerned, that is another person, neither the appellant, nor Miss Storie, which, as it happens would be consistent with finding Mr Gregsten's DNA, there having been intercourse between him and Miss Storie some two days before the fatal event.

I’ve taken the above from Rob Harriman’s book where he gives most of the transcript for the DNA aspect of the appeal.

I am not sure where the “two days” has come from mentioned by Sweeney.

I have had a quick reread of the transcript and Mansfield QC does not seem to make anything of this. But part of the problem in understanding this aspect of the case is that the various expert witnesses have given reports upon which they have been examined and cross examined, and while the questions asked find their way into the transcript, the reports about which they are being asked do not.

It seems therefore that AB group stains were discovered in 1961 and VS would have been asked about these at the time. The Crown and defence at the time were agreed that the seminal stains from the O secretor were those of the rapist/murderer. The AB stains must therefore have been those left by MG.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #4650  
Old 03-21-2018, 11:58 PM
Alfie Alfie is offline
Detective
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 195
Default

Hi OneRound, Spitfire etc

I was less interested in debating the vagaries of DNA testing than I was in discussing the likelihood of Valerie and Gregsten having sex in the Morrie on the evening of the 22nd, and perhaps being caught in flagrante delicto by Hanratty.

Is there a female poster who'd judge it likely that the knickers Valerie was wearing on Tuesday evening were the same ones that she'd donned on Sunday morning, and hadn't washed in the meantime?
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 08:45 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.