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:
Lechmere/Cross, Charles: So if you live in Bethnal Green, you won´t kill in Whitechapel? - by Abby Normal 47 minutes ago.
Lechmere/Cross, Charles: So if you live in Bethnal Green, you won´t kill in Whitechapel? - by MrBarnett 3 hours ago.
Lechmere/Cross, Charles: So if you live in Bethnal Green, you won´t kill in Whitechapel? - by Harry D 4 hours ago.
Lechmere/Cross, Charles: So if you live in Bethnal Green, you won´t kill in Whitechapel? - by MrBarnett 4 hours ago.
General Discussion: Ripper was several people... - by Harry D 4 hours ago.
General Discussion: Ripper was several people... - by Sam Flynn 4 hours ago.

Most Popular Threads:
Lechmere/Cross, Charles: So if you live in Bethnal Green, you won´t kill in Whitechapel? - (46 posts)
General Discussion: Ripper was several people... - (10 posts)
General Suspect Discussion: Kansas Physician Confirms Howard Report - (4 posts)
General Discussion: Jack The Ripper and Venus - (4 posts)
Motive, Method and Madness: Jack the Ripper learned don't eviscerate before you exsanguinate - (2 posts)
General Discussion: Eddowes' Shawl - (2 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
  #101  
Old 02-14-2011, 07:45 PM
Natalie Severn Natalie Severn is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: London
Posts: 4,863
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by babybird67 View Post
are you aware that Hanratty's own defence team are now in agreement with the Prosecution that Alphon 'could not have been' the A6 murderer?

It doesn't appear that you are from your ravings about Alphon and his character.
Ravings Jen? I was quoting from the work of some leading psychiatrists.I leave you to see the links between what we know about Alphon and what has been termed by these psychiatrists as a "schizoid personality"----it is claimed Hitler had such a personality-interesting because Alphon was a great admirer of Hitler .

I think the defence team were duped by the big bogey DNA-as per the dated LCNDNA 2002 testing! What they were referring to in this case was Low Copy number DNA which simply means a minimal amount of it-almost nothing to be precise which is why nobody can check it because it was destroyed in the testing.How convenient!
What I would dearly like to have now is an answer to is the question Dupplin Muir asked a little while back:

"What happened to all the other DNA that should have been on the sample viz
-the nurses who treated VS
-the police who collected and bagged the sample
-the forensic scientists who originally examined it
None of these people knew about DNA testing so they can"t have taken any measures against their DNA getting on the sample,"

Best
Norma

Last edited by Natalie Severn : 02-14-2011 at 07:54 PM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #102  
Old 02-14-2011, 10:30 PM
Natalie Severn Natalie Severn is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: London
Posts: 4,863
Default

[quote=babybird67;165132]Hanratty himself made the connection by leaving his handkerchief, which he freely identified was his, around it, and by admitting France's account of his conversation was true.

Natalie Severn said:
Actually Jen,there isn"t a single reference to this hanky having been found wrapped round the gun and the box of 60 cartridge cases in any National newspaper in the weeks following the find on the bus----this is despite a search through all the local and National newspapers of that time.If you happen to know of a newspaper report that mentions it it would be greatly appreciated.


babybird said:

And as I have stated a zillion times, the times for asking questions is over. The man has been convicted three times. His DNA was on his victim's knickers showing he had had sex with her. She identified him. The time for asking questions which have been answered over and over, should really be over. Justice for Valerie. She deserves it.

Natalie Severn said:

Ok Jen, the prosecution claimed their forensic scientists had found Hanratty"s DNA on Valerie"s knickers.Apparently they only mentioned Hanratty"s first off, then ,when others wondered what had happened to Valerie"s and Gregsten"s they included theirs too-as a kind of "after thought".
But and it is a big "but" --- they conducted these tests in secret and then destroyed the evidence ---so in my book and that of many others ,such a test is worthless. We are expected to simply take their word for it-- as an act of faith rather than as a scientific fact ,which shatters any illusion that such testing is objective or even "scientific" since the tests cannot be considered to abide by the rules of science ie have been undertaken by a scientific method predicated upon a process which allows "repeatability".Their test cannot be repeated.What happened to the rest of the cloth ?Did they destroy that too?
Oh-and I would so dearly like some answers to that question poised by Dupplin Muir which I wrote up earlier-see above.


Cheers
Norma

Last edited by Natalie Severn : 02-14-2011 at 10:53 PM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #103  
Old 02-15-2011, 12:17 AM
RonIpstone RonIpstone is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 313
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Natalie Severn View Post



But and it is a big "but" --- they conducted these tests in secret and then destroyed the evidence ---so in my book and that of many others ,such a test is worthless.

This is nonsense. The Hanratty family had solicitors acting who had instructed forensic experts to observe the DNA tests. This clip shows Dr Patrick Lincoln interviewed for Woffinden's Channel 4 prog The Mystery of Deadman's Hill and you will see that he was quite sanguine about the prospects of obtaining a profile of the murderer.

Doc Lincoln seems to have been ditched in favour of Doc Evison for the evidence given on appeal. I have always assumed that Dr Lincoln had confirmed that Hanratty's DNA was present, that he had been rightfully convicted and that Evison had been brought in to give a second opinion. The best he could come up with was that Hanratty's DNA was present but might have got there as a contaminant.

The possibility of contamination was accepted by both the court and the prosecution, but if Hanratty's DNA was there as a contaminant where was the rapist's DNA? A question which to this day no proper answer has been given by either the Hanratty defence team or by the Hanratty Appreciation Society.

The last time this matter came up for a wider public debate was when the doddery Richard Ingrams was given free rein with the Radio 4 Today prog, and the forensic expert brought on to give her views had not even seen the test file or had access to details of the test procedures.

To the satisfaction of most right thinking people the presence of Hanratty's DNA on the two exhibits tested has been satisfactorily proved. It has not been explained how the rapist/murderer's DNA could have vanished if the rapist/murderer had been not Hanratty.

Last edited by RonIpstone : 02-15-2011 at 12:19 AM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #104  
Old 02-15-2011, 08:42 AM
Black Rabbit Black Rabbit is offline
Constable
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Bedfordshire
Posts: 50
Default

Please could anyone inform me, size wise, just how big a 'fragment' of the knickers was used in the DNA testing and exactly from what part of the garment this 'fragment' actualy came from?

An actual source of reference would be most welcome too if possible.
__________________
Silence is Consent!
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #105  
Old 02-15-2011, 08:47 AM
Natalie Severn Natalie Severn is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: London
Posts: 4,863
Default

Quote:
This is nonsense. The Hanratty family had solicitors acting who had instructed forensic experts to observe the DNA tests. This clip shows Dr Patrick Lincoln interviewed for Woffinden's Channel 4 prog The Mystery of Deadman's Hill and you will see that he was quite sanguine about the prospects of obtaining a profile of the murderer.
What I am concerned about is not whether the Hanratty family solicitors were invited to "observe" these tests ,but what the words "observe the tests " means,very specifically, in this case.The tests as I understand were carried out by the FSS acting "on behalf of the prosecution".They were not "neutral" or "impartial" operators, if they were employed and paid by the prosecution.

So the devil is in the detail here: So did either Doctor Lincoln or later Dr Evison actually "invigilate" during the process of testing ---were they physically involved in the process ,from when the items were collected and arranged for testing to when the results were examined ?ie Were they present-in the flesh-during the process itself or did they simply study the end result---ie the findings of the prosecution"s FFS team?
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #106  
Old 02-15-2011, 08:50 AM
Natalie Severn Natalie Severn is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: London
Posts: 4,863
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Black Rabbit View Post
Please could anyone inform me, size wise, just how big a 'fragment' of the knickers was used in the DNA testing and exactly from what part of the garment this 'fragment' actualy came from?

An actual source of reference would be most welcome too if possible.
An excellent question Black Rabbit.As I understand it it was a very tiny piece of cloth-about the size of four stamps.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #107  
Old 02-15-2011, 09:14 AM
Natalie Severn Natalie Severn is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: London
Posts: 4,863
Default

Quote:
It has not been explained how the rapist/murderer's DNA could have vanished if the rapist/murderer had been not Hanratty.
Well this is why we need to know why the DNA of the nurses has vanished
who would have handled the item as they removed it from Valerie"s person and this of course being done in 1961,so long before the strict guidelines regarding DNA were issued
and why the DNA of the police who then collected it and bagged it,had vanished
not forgetting the DNA of the original FFS who cut the cloth had also vanished?
From a reading of what went on in the hospital,with police coming and going with scant regard for Hospital procedure-eg smoking throughout their questioning of Valerie despite requests to refrain by nursing staff, it seems that procedures regarding sterile handling and protection of items from contamination were unsatisfactory if not quite sloppy.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #108  
Old 02-15-2011, 09:55 AM
RonIpstone RonIpstone is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 313
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Natalie Severn View Post
What I am concerned about is not whether the Hanratty family solicitors were invited to "observe" these tests ,but what the words "observe the tests " means,very specifically, in this case.The tests as I understand were carried out by the FSS acting "on behalf of the prosecution".They were not "neutral" or "impartial" operators, if they were employed and paid by the prosecution.

Ultimately this whole expensive business was paid for by the taxpayer, so you could argue that no one was impartial or neutral.

The point is that the tests were initially requested by the Defence. When the Home Office agreed that tests could take place, the Defence nstructed experts to observe, whatever that might mean, the tests. As far as I can see no Defence expert has complained that the tests were carried out otherwise than properly, the only complaint being that the LCN procedure could have amplified Hanratty's DNA which had been present as a contaminant. More tellingly there has been no complainant that the Defence has been obstructed in its observation of the tests carried out.

Like it or lump it, there was not enough material for the Defence to carry out its own tests, so the procedure of the FSS testing with the Defence expert observing had to be followed.

Doc Lincoln has not complained, Dr Evison did not complain, neither did Bindman nor Mansfield, but I suppose in some folk's mind they are all part of the conspiracy dreamt up all those years ago by Harold MacMillan to ensure that Hanratty swung for Alphon's crime.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #109  
Old 02-15-2011, 10:41 AM
Dupplin Muir Dupplin Muir is offline
Constable
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 94
Default

Hello All

RonIpstone wrote:

Quote:
Like it or lump it, there was not enough material for the Defence to carry out its own tests
That's the problem: there was enough material for the defence to carry out tests. We're talking LCN testing here - if the sample was a couple of square inches in size, why didn't FSS cut off (say) a quarter of that, leaving the rest for future testing? LCN requires no more than 5-20 cells and surely there were a lot more than that on the sample? If it really took the entire piece of fabric to get enough material to test, this makes it all the more likely that Hanratty's DNA got there by contamination.

However, FSS have a rather unsavoury reputation for completely destroying samples even in much more recent cases, and one can only presume that this is being done deliberately.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #110  
Old 02-15-2011, 10:46 AM
Natalie Severn Natalie Severn is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: London
Posts: 4,863
Default

Quote:
Doc Lincoln has not complained, Dr Evison did not complain, neither did Bindman nor Mansfield, but I suppose in some folk's mind they are all part of the conspiracy dreamt up all those years ago by Harold MacMillan to ensure that Hanratty swung for Alphon's crime.
Ofcourse they were not part of a "conspiracy"! Its ridiculous to try to smear every question with this slogan!
I asked a specific question which you decided to "reconstruct" by adding in some speculative nonsense about conspiracies.
The state/crown designs systems,laws,procedures.Some procedures belonging to the legal system date back to the middle ages.The FFS appointed by the prosecution in this case cannot be said to be neutral or impartial as its paymaster is the prosecution .The testing was not an impartial, participatory process of testing involving the defence Forensic science experts .
Certain procedures such as a truly democratic,objective, participatory scientific process where all the forensic scientists representing both prosecution and defence were present from start to finish would have had to have been insisted from the beginning.It was not.The defence ,having agreed to the procedure to be followed were obliged to accept the results -in this case"in good faith" as the piece of cloth was destroyed after the process .
Here we have a prime example of how things can be conducted in secret and by accepted procedures and the results then have to be accepted by defence lawyers, in good faith ,regarding the experiment carried out by government appointed FFS teams.
I note you are avoiding giving any explanation for the "disappearing DNA" from the knicker fragment of the 1961 nurses/police handlers and FFS scientists.
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 08:43 AM.


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