A6 Rebooted

[OneRound]

Are you certain that there were blood type AB seminal stains on the piece of the knickers that was available for DNA analysis?

I had assumed that the AB stains had been discovered in 1961 at the same time as the O stains, and that it had been determined at that early stage of the investigation that the O stains had come from the murderer and the AB stains from Gregsten. I had therefore thought that the piece of the knickers excised would have only contained O group stains and that no AB stains were available for analysis in 1990 onwards.

Hi Spitfire - I need to emphasise that I'm no legal or scientific expert. Anyway, with that important caveat, this is my take on matters based on my reading of the 2002 Court of Appeal judgement.

I agree with your assumption in the first sentence of your closing paragraph and that is supported by the Court of Appeal's judgement. Dupplin Muir's earlier post as to when and therefore how Gregsten's AB semen got on the underwear might though raise questions for some. Admittedly, others might consider it unnecessarily intrusive and irrelevant.

I am of the view though that your thinking in the final sentence of your final paragraph is incorrect.

Amongst some (but not all) of the reasons for discounting the possibility of Hanratty's DNA appearing by means of contamination, the Court stated in paragraph 125, ''... 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 Court then stated in the very next sentence of the same paragraph, ''The same would have to be true of the DNA attributed to Michael Gregsten.'' I don't see how the Court could have made this statement if the DNA attributed to Gregsten hadn't been on the underwear tested prior to their 2002 judgement.

As I've said before, probing matters in respect of the AB semen may ultimately have not led anywhere productive for Hanratty's legal team. However, I can't believe it would have been more harmful than the rest of the DNA findings ... and, even though the odds would have been very long, it might just have turned up something to cast doubt on the rest of the DNA that had gone before it.

Best regards,

OneRound

[Spitfire]

Thanks, OneRound, I'd forgotten about that part of the judgement.

[Derrick]

...''The same would have to be true of the DNA attributed to Michael Gregsten.''

This one word is the most important.

As I have said before, I have seen copies of Mr Lewis Nickolls' original notes and his testimony at the trial and nowhere is there fluid of group AB reported on Miss Stories knickers at all.

The FSS scientists have just assumed it's Gregsten's DNA, nothing more.

HTH
Del

[Spitfire]

The FSS scientists have just assumed it's Gregsten's DNA, nothing more.

HTH
Del

So you are saying the scientists did not take samples fro Gregsten's son, as Graham says above?

Why haven't Woffinden, Bindman et al made a fuss of this? One would have expected one of them to say on reading that part of the Court of Appeal's judgement referred to above by OneRound that the AB semen stains could be those of the unidentified rapist not Gregsten.

Yet nearly 13 years on not a peep of this from those with access to the testing results and procedures relied on in 2002.

[Dupplin Muir]

Spitfire wrote:

I had assumed that the AB stains had been discovered in 1961 at the same time as the O stains, and that it had been determined at that early stage of the investigation that the O stains had come from the murderer and the AB stains from Gregsten.

I think what happened was that there was an assumption that VS and MG had engaged in sex, and that therefore any AB semen found must have been his. Absent DNA testing they certainly couldn't say for certain that it belonged to MG. Since there appears to be some doubt that sex had actually occurred, this was a fallacious assumption.

[Derrick]

Hi Spitfire

So you are saying the scientists did not take samples fro Gregsten's son, as Graham says above?

That's right. Apart from the James Hanratty (and his family) samples the only other samples were taken from Miss Storie and Alphon.

It would have been no real use taking DNA from his offspring. That would only have been of use for mtDNA testing and would have needed to have been taken from his mother and/or any siblings. Seeing as Gregsten was an only child and his mother, Jeannie May, was in her late 60's in 1961 that avenue is closed.

But that would have been of no use as the knickers fragment semen sample showed no mtDNA anyway.

Why haven't Woffinden, Bindman et al made a fuss of this? One would have expected one of them to say on reading that part of the Court of Appeal's judgement referred to above by OneRound that the AB semen stains could be those of the unidentified rapist not Gregsten.

As far as I can make out, the Hanratty family's legal advisers have always taken the stance that the DNA evidence is unreliable. Unfortunately the wheels of justice in this country run very slowly when errors occur.

Yet nearly 13 years on not a peep of this from those with access to the testing results and procedures relied on in 2002.

From what I have read about the FSS and disclosure of test results, I imagine that after the Nunn ruling at the Supreme Court last year (http://www.supremecourt.uk/decided-c...5_Judgment.pdf) that getting access to forensic exhibits/tests etc would now be very difficult.

Del

[Graham]

All my A6 books were published before the 2002 Appeal and contain no reference regarding from whom samples were taken for DNA analysis. Initial samples were taken from JH's mother and brother but these were for the "pre-appeal" initial analyses, the results of which made the family less keen to go ahead with a full legal appeal.

Unfortunately I can't find any written evidence to show that Simon Gregsten donated a sample for the 2002 Appeal. Alphon most certainly did. The only other sources for my believing this would be from these boards, possibly pre-crash, and from one of the TV documentaries, most of which I have but they're all on video-tape and my machine isn't in top shape. It would take me a long time to go through them. So at least for the time being I'm willing to accept that Simon Gregsten did not donate a sample, but would like to hear from anyone who can advise further.

Graham

[OneRound]

Hi Graham - I regret that I can't give a substantive answer to your query concerning Simon Gregsten. However, if he did donate a sample for DNA analysis, it seems strange that the Court of Appeal made no reference to this in their judgement of 2002.

Best regards,

OneRound

[Graham]

Yeah, you're right, OneRound, no reference made.

Graham

[OneRound]

... As far as I can make out, the Hanratty family's legal advisers have always taken the stance that the DNA evidence is unreliable. Unfortunately the wheels of justice in this country run very slowly when errors occur.

...

Hi Del - certainly agree with you about the running of the wheels of justice but feel it's only fair to make a couple of points about your first sentence above.

1. The use of DNA evidence was originally championed by Hanratty's family. It was only when undesired results were produced that contamination and lack of reliability were claimed by them and other supporters of Hanratty.

2. From paragraph 128 of the Court of Appeal's 2002 judgement - ''By way of postscript we should record that it has been agreed by Mr Sweeney [QC for the Crown] and Mr Mansfield [QC for James Hanratty deceased] that on the evidence now available Peter Alphon could not have been the murderer. It is understood that this agreement arose out of the DNA evidence.'' On the basis that the DNA evidence is considered unreliable, I've always been baffled as to how anyone could be ruled in or ruled out.

Best regards,

OneRound

[moste]

From Graham 9th of Dec....No colour photo, no newsreel footage (apart from appearing with a blanket over his head), no recording of his voice has come down to us, so how can you be so sure how Hanratty sounded and looked? I can't recall reading that his father said that Alphon sounded like his son. And without the benefit of a good-quality colour photo, I honestly don't know how it can be determined that he was ruddy-faced and freckled. No-one has ever mentioned this aspect of his appearance before, and perhaps you'd be kind enough to give further details of the 'good authority' on which you obtained this information. Of course, if this 'good authority' is a person who actually knew Hanratty and has or had a good memory of his appearance, then that would be different..
So from Sherlock, the good authority is Michael Hanratty.
James WAS ruddy complexion, well freckled, slightly cleft chin to boot .
So this should make it different then, Graham?
I really have to say again, even a glimpse in a car headlight, should have narrowed right down Valerie's impression of her assailant, had he looked like Hanratty.

[Graham]

This is what I wrote, Post No 2079:

No colour photo, no newsreel footage (apart from appearing with a blanket over his head), no recording of his voice has come down to us, so how can you be so sure how Hanratty sounded and looked? I can't recall reading that his father said that Alphon sounded like his son. And without the benefit of a good-quality colour photo, I honestly don't know how it can be determined that he was ruddy-faced and freckled. No-one has ever mentioned this aspect of his appearance before, and perhaps you'd be kind enough to give further details of the 'good authority' on which you obtained this information. Of course, if this 'good authority' is a person who actually knew Hanratty and has or had a good memory of his appearance, then that would be different.

After his arrest and during psychological interviews, his accent and diction were examined, mainly because (according to Woffinden) Acott had referred to Hanratty having a 'speech impediment'. At any rate. the specialist who analysed Hanratty's diction said that his accent was typical of any Londoner from a 'working-class', low standard of education background. I can remember only the salient points of this assessment, as I still don't have my books back, but it's all in Woffinden.

Regarding Alphon, we have loads of photos of him, plus of course the (in)famous Paris interview which was filmed. Plus evidence from at least one person who knew him that he was quite well-spoken and articulate, and given to criticising others for poor pronunciation. Certainly, his accent in the filmed interview is (to my ears) southern Home Counties with a touch of London, but certainly not Cockney.

As a Midlander, I have to say that a strong Cockney accent can sometimes be rather difficult to understand, but I have no problem with Alphon's accent. He is very fluent in that interview, as he ate the BBC reporter for breakfast.......

Graham

I can't quite see the point of your post, Mr Moste. I was merely pondering what James Hanratty really looked and sounded like, no more than that. If according to Sherlock, Michael Hanratty said that James was freckled and ruddy, then I'm prepared to accept that, but I wrote my post prior to Sherlock revealing his source.

And I can't quite understand what you're getting at in your last sentence. Valerie obviously saw enough of Hanratty in the car to identify him at the ID parade on which he was present, even though she admitted that her memory of the man was fading. She got it right.

Graham

[john]

freckled face

The 20 minute does not wash at all. If he did have a freckled face that would be damning. Never once did she mentioned it in statements, court appearances etc. Nor did the Police. It would have been very conclusive in sealing Hanratty as the culprit. The Police/Prosecution could have used this fact if it had been mentioned to absolutely rule out Alphon and indeed many other suspects. Freckled face criminals are not so many. Also the remark of Charlotte France that the identikit looks like Hanratty if he did have a ruddy freckled face is inconsistent. In 1 photo it does look if he is freckled yet inothers no sign so where does the truth lie?

However one line anywhere in her statements that the murderer was freckled would have been hard to counter from the defence then and even now. No mention of it at all by her.

Also in the first identity parade she took a long time again, well over 15 minutes in police records to wrongly identify Michael Clark. Was she making him suffer? It does not add up at all.

To play devils advocate equally Grace Jones or any of the Rhyl Witnesses mention any freckles at all. That would be convincing unarguable evidence for his presence there.

[Sherlock Houses]

So from Sherlock, the good authority is Michael Hanratty.
James WAS ruddy complexion, well freckled, slightly cleft chin to boot .
So this should make it different then, Graham?
I really have to say again, even a glimpse in a car headlight, should have narrowed right down Valerie's impression of her assailant, had he looked like Hanratty.

I spoke with Michael and his wife Maureen as recently as 4 weeks ago. During that phone conversation they both confirmed to me the fact that James's face was very freckled, even more noticeably so during the summer. Hanratty worked with his father as a window cleaner for the three month period from about mid April to mid July 1961. Maureen told me that she was seventeen that summer and that James cleaned her family's windows regularly and that she would pay him the half crown [ equivalent to 12.5 pence] that he charged. The facial feature of his which struck her most and which she remarked to him on was how fully freckled his face was, it was covered in freckles.

This is in stark contrast of course to Valerie Storie's description of the gunman having a pale face. A vital distinction.

[Dupplin Muir]

OneRound wrote:

If tests had shown that the AB semen didn't match Gregsten, then the DNA evidence against Hanratty would have been seriously called into question, if not entirely blown out of the water. The presence of unidentified semen would have to show that either someone other than Hanratty was the rapist or, at the very least, that the DNA evidence was contaminated and could not be relied upon.

I strongly suspect that if the AB semen had been shown to be from someone other than Gregsten, the evidence for contamination (deemed hopelessly inadequate when cited by the defence) would have been found strong enough to support the idea of contamination with DNA from A. N. Other, Esq - in preference to accepting that the rape may have been perpetrated by someone else...