A6 Rebooted

[OneRound]

What If ....

Hi folks,

I would be grateful if you would permit me to raise a ''what if'' scenario for consideration.

Under the Criminal Justice Act 2003, previously acquitted muder suspects can be retried for the same crime if there is ''new'' and ''compelling'' evidence. The retrial has to be approved by the Director of Public Prosections and the original acquittal quashed by the Court of Appeal. Although this Act did not come into force until 2005, it covers all applicable crimes regardless of when they were committed.

Now, just suppose [I can hear some of you bristling already!] Hanratty had been acquitted at his original trial. I don't think that's a ludicrous proposition. After all, the jury took a considerable time to reach their conclusion and their verdict was apparently surprising to some commentators. Continuing my theme, suppose a cold case review took place many years later and the same DNA evidence came to light as considered for real by the Court of Appeal in 2002.

In this scenario, would the DPP have approved Hanratty's retrial and would the Court of Appeal have quashed his original acquittal? I'm not so sure they would have done. Consider just some of the following questions:

* Do we know precisely how Hanratty's and Miss Storie's items were tested in the early 1960s?
* Did the testing procedures then meet the standards now in place relating to the safety of DNA evidence?
* Although we know where these items were subsequently located in the 1990s, do we know where they were during the intervening thirty years (post trial) and who handled them during that time?
* Can we be satisfied what glass fragments, which might have come from a vial or tube, were doing with certain of the items and what impact any of its possible content might have had?
* Did these storage procedures meet the standards now in place relating to the safety of DNA evidence?

I believe any reasonable person would be hard pressed to answer ''yes'' to any of the above questions. I reiterate that this doesn't mean Hanratty was innocent but do suspect the Court of Appeal would not have been nearly so keen to rely on the DNA evidence and find it ''compelling'' if the original verdict had been different.

All to aid debate and, of course, a hypothetical scenario but it does make me wonder ....

[Natalie Severn]

Hi One Round,
just caught your post with your apposite list of questions:
With regard to the 1961 tests:
The garments were handled by nurses,police and a pathology lab. Testing was done immediately on the knickers ie 23 August 1961 [as understood at the time]

viz from the 2002 appeal:
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. Although the laboratory records are not dated, the notes are numbered sequentially and we are confident that the knickers were examined almost immediately and in any event no later than 23 September 1961 when the notes show that certain samples taken from Peter Alphon were examined at the laboratory. The handkerchief came to the laboratory on 25 August, was screened for blood and semen and, none being found, seems to have been put to one side.


Blood group O was established which both Alphon and Hanratty shared as well as 40% of the rest of the population.


Testing re-commenced on 28th and 29th December when semen and fibres were extracted from a pair of Hanratty's trousers and the following day the knickers had a piece cut from the crotch area and this was examined as well as an area of the slip.
Point 116 of2002 appeal

As a result of correspondence between James Hanratty’s then solicitors and the DPP, arrangements were made for the pathologist, Dr Grant, to have access to James Hanratty’s intimate samples and also to certain of the exhibits. It appears from the records that Dr Grant examined the green jacket and trousers on 28 December 1961 and Valerie Storie’s slips and knickers the following day. It was on this latter occasion that a portion of the crotch area of the knickers was removed and thereafter, as seems clear, stored separately from the other exhibits including the knickers from which it had been excised. As also seems clear, a fragment of the excised portion was retained by the laboratory having first been placed in a small envelope made of cellophane and sellotape which was in turn put into a small brown envelope and the small envelope into a larger envelope before being treasury tagged to a laboratory file. It was so placed when rediscovered in 1991.

It is very unlikely that the stringent conditions required in 2011, indeed demanded by the International Forensic Scientific Community today,would bear any resemblance to what was regarded as acceptable in 1961.
Indeed we have photos of these exhibits being taken to court by a man in a smart hat and suit - but without gloves
As for the evidential history of the exhibits nothing is known about these during the period 1961-1991 when the knicker piece was then found in a drawer in a police lab in Lambeth[?]The hanky turned up later when Bedford police forwarded it from the Bedford Police Station, Bedford being where the trial was held in 1962 so nothing is known of the evidential history of the hanky either.

[OneRound]

Hi One Round,

....

It is very unlikely that the stringent conditions required in 2011, indeed demanded by the International Forensic Scientific Community today,would bear any resemblance to what was regarded as acceptable in 1961 ....

As for the evidential history of the exhibits nothing is known about these during the period 1961-1991 ....

Hi Natalie,

Thanks for your response.

I certainly go along with the parts of your post as extracted above.

This firmly supports my view that the Court of Appeal were prepared to turn a blind eye to some of the weaknesses and flaws relating to the DNA findings in order to use it so as to uphold the original jury verdict.

The thing ''both sides'' on this forum need to recognise is that very convincing evidence needs to be presented for the Court of Appeal to overturn a jury verdict. Once the jury found Hanratty guilty in 1962, his defenders have always been swimming against the tide.

If Hanratty had been found not guilty by the jury at his original trial and the Crown had now appealed for that verdict to be quashed, I think the Court of Appeal would have sung a very different tune as to the reliability of the DNA evidence and ruled it unsafe for some of the reasons flagged in our posts.

OneRound

[Natalie Severn]

Once the jury found Hanratty guilty in 1962, his defenders have always been swimming against the tide.
If Hanratty had been found not guilty by the jury

The judge had tried to suggest to them ,when,during their nine hour deliberation they appealed to him for guidance,that if they still wanted to know what 'beyond reasonable doubt meant ' after hours of deliberation,it was probably because they were in doubt and should therefore not find him guilty-
It is widely believed Valerie's identification was what swayed them.Valerie had stated to the court ,in a calm clear voice, that she was certain the A6 gunman was James Hanratty.
However,three weeks earlier she had stated in the same calm clear voice
that she had no doubt that an RAF volunteer was the A6 gunman.

[OneRound]

The judge had tried to suggest to them ,when,during their nine hour deliberation they appealed to him for guidance,that if they still wanted to know what 'beyond reasonable doubt meant ' after hours of deliberation,it was probably because they were in doubt and should therefore not find him guilty-
It is widely believed Valerie's identification was what swayed them.Valerie had stated to the court ,in a calm clear voice, that she was certain the A6 gunman was James Hanratty.
However,three weeks earlier she had stated in the same calm clear voice
that she had no doubt that an RAF volunteer was the A6 gunman.

Hi again Natalie,

I agree with you that the jury's request for clarification as to the meaning of ''beyond reasonable doubt'' did indicate a ''not guilty'' verdict might well follow. However, we don't know why the jury made the request and so can't be certain.

The judge's direction could have been sought, for example, because one jury member alone was holding out from bringing in a ''guilty'' verdict as he was not, say, ''absolutely certain beyond a shadow of a doubt''. If that was the case, it was appropriate for the jury to deliver a ''guilty'' verdict after hearing the judge's guidance on the matter. As I say, we just don't know enough - that applies to so much of the case and is a major reason why so many aspects can be argued both ways [see also my next para].

I also agree with you about the likely effect of Miss Storie's statements to the court. You are right to contrast that with her earlier identification which was totally incorrect. To my mind, that certainly weakens her credibility. However, the jury decided otherwise and, as supporters of the Court of Appeal's judgment will probably point out to you, there is no proof she was wrong second time out.

Coincidences, inconsistencies and uncertainties will almost certainly be attached to the Hanratty case for the rest of time. Any tiny chance of the original ''guilty'' verdict being overturned probably best now rests with highlighting deficiencies in the Court of Appeal's judgment and the safety of their ruling in order that a new appeal can be brought ....

[Natalie Severn]

Hi OneRound,
A point I would like to know is how big was the knicker fragment used to conduct the LCN DNA tests?
My impression is that it was miniscule-less than one -tenth of an inch square-if that.Ok it was originally cut from the crotch area of the knickers [at that time it was a piece about 2 inches square apparently -then cut again into two one inch pieces -all in December 1961] but its evidential history from the beginning is so uncertain [who handled it over time /when-for example did Dr Grant in December 1961 take sufficient care to avoid contamination of the knicker piece by Hanratty's trousers that he had examined and excised of semen the previous day[28th December?]whether or not the people who handled the cloth wore gloves /what boxes it was carried in to Ampthill in November 1961 and what other garments were carried about in those boxes ie for example ,carried to and fro at the 10 day committal hearing in Ampthill ] The fact is that it was stored in unsterile conditions - conditions that do not in any way concur with the rigorous standards demanded by the International Community of Forensic Scientists today ,2011, with regard to LCN DNA testing in particular.The potential for the original DNA on the cloth to actually have degraded over the 40 odd years if not to have disappeared altogether in such below standard conditions is a distinct possibility -it cannot be ruled out.Add to this the broken vial with the rubber bung being found in the same drawer and thought to have possibly contained a December 1961 washof Hanratty's semen stained trousers , and you can see how such a fragment of cloth could have been contaminated when the glass vial broke.And there were other hairs and fibres stored in between glass plates that had worked loose.

Finally ,if the knicker piece was indeed that tiny how on earth can anyone possibly talk with any certainty ,or in my view any credibility, about the rapists DNA being likely to be present on such tiny portion of cloth? Why should it be? It could easily be on a part of the knickers that is cut off/missing.Surely nobody is suggesting that the semen stain was so extensive it covered every particle of crotch area cloth? On the other hand if a broken glass vial had contained a wash of Hanratty's seminal fluid -as was discussed at the hearing and accepted even back then as a possible contaminant -then yes, the liquid could have covered and indeed saturated a square inch piece of knicker cloth in the drawer stored with Hanratty's DNA that had been taken from his trousers in December 1961 by Dr Grant.

[caz]

Hi Nats, OneRound,

May I ask what the point of excising and preserving that tiny knicker fragment would have been, without ensuring it was stained with the rapist's group O semen? It seems daft to hang on to the remote possibility that all the incriminating evidence was on the bit they chucked away.

Don't forget it was said that the DNA evidence made a strong case even stronger, while Hanratty defenders were expecting this evidence to prove his innocence, and would not now be coming up with a variety of arguments against its reliability had it indicated a different rapist! I'm not sure the appeal would necessarily have been successful without the DNA evidence, considering the case was said to be 'strong' as it was.

For me, it has always been Rhyl that did for Hanratty, because it makes absolutely no sense to provide a wholly or partially false alibi (Liverpool) if you have a genuine one and you are quite fond of your own neck. The DNA they found just makes Rhyl look that much more phoney.

Love,

Caz
X

[Natalie Severn]

Hi Nats, OneRound,

May I ask what the point of excising and preserving that tiny knicker fragment would have been, without ensuring it was stained with the rapist's group O semen? It seems daft to hang on to the remote possibility that all the incriminating evidence was on the bit they chucked away.

Don't forget it was said that the DNA evidence made a strong case even stronger,
X

Hi Caz,
Neither you,I nor anyone else knows,what happened to that one inch square piece of cloth between December 1961 and 1991 when it was found in non-sterile storage in a drawer in a police lab,long forgotten about, but we know that in that same storage area was a broken vial that the crown admitted may have contained a seminal wash from Hanratty, hairs and other fibres taken presumably from the body of the accused and packaged in a porous brown paper envelope within another paper envelope.Such conditions would have been totally unacceptable for fair testing to the International Forensic Community of Scientists as per their statements of recent years.
Contamination was not only possible but very likely according to the various scientists that have spoken recently in courts and on television about the grave dangers of contamination in the useof LCN tests to determine the DNA on anything but exhibits stored in the most sterile and stringent conditions in sealed off science lab---ie one where the only that can be people admitted must wear sterile masks so as not to even breathe on the exhibit,as well as sterile caps that cover their hair,sterile coats that cover their clothes,and sterile gloves so nobody gets to handle these items---I can provide the link to the programme on this if you wish.
Nothing like this pertained to the 41 year old piece of knicker cloth----it was not even a 'piece' as such but a tiny fraction of an inch sample......
Dr Whitaker has been pulled up a number of times fior the claims he made about his LCN testing.Here is one example:
Mr Justice Weir went on to admonish Dr Whitaker in the following way (P63);
Quote:
I was concerned about the manner and content of the response of Dr Whitaker to these criticisms. He was most unwilling to accept that the continuing absence of international agreement on validation of LCN (unlike SGM+)or the variations in the way in which it was being implemented in different countries should be any impediment to the ready acceptance by any court of the Birmingham approach. I found him inappropriately combative as an expert witness and his unwillingness to debate constructively the various matters put to him was unhelpful in the extreme. By contrast, his colleague Dr Gill, while understandably concerned to endorse the views of Dr Whitaker where he properly could, was willing to carefully consider the propositions put to him by Mr Pownall QC and, where appropriate, to disagree with his colleague on important issues both general and specific to the case. In my view it was extremely fortunate that the prosecution decided late in the day to call Dr Gill as his evidence greatly helped to inform and bring some objectivity to the debate.

Here is a fuller version of this particular miscarriage of justice:http://news.sky.com/home/article/1298145
This man would, in 1961 have been hanged on the basis of Dr Whitaker's LCN tests .Thankfully his verdict was overturned.His is by no means the only case to have hit the headlines-if you want more examples they can be posted.
Best
Norma

[Rob63]

I haven`t been on the forum for a while, but the some of the findings which cleared Amanda Knox in the Italian courts reminded me of the inconsistencies which can happen regarding DNA even nowadays.

They maintain that Miss Knox's DNA was on the handle of a kitchen knife - found in Mr Sollecito's flat and believed to be the murder weapon - with Miss Kercher's DNA on the blade.
They also said Mr Sollecito's DNA was on the clasp of Miss Kercher's bra.
But an independent review disputed those findings, raising concerns over poor procedures in evidence collection and forensic testing, and possible contamination.
It placed into doubt the attribution of the DNA traces - collected from the crime scene 46 days after the murder.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-15158163

[OneRound]

Rob - thanks for sharing that link.

Hanratty's family and supporters were unfortunate that the Court of Appeal considered the appeal on his behalf in 2002.

A few years earlier and no sufficient DNA findings would have been available.

A few years later and the DNA findings would have been largely discredited due to the developments and concerns flagged in your and Natalie's last post.

OneRound

[Limehouse]

Hi folks,

I would be grateful if you would permit me to raise a ''what if'' scenario for consideration.

Under the Criminal Justice Act 2003, previously acquitted muder suspects can be retried for the same crime if there is ''new'' and ''compelling'' evidence. The retrial has to be approved by the Director of Public Prosections and the original acquittal quashed by the Court of Appeal. Although this Act did not come into force until 2005, it covers all applicable crimes regardless of when they were committed.

Now, just suppose [I can hear some of you bristling already!] Hanratty had been acquitted at his original trial. I don't think that's a ludicrous proposition. After all, the jury took a considerable time to reach their conclusion and their verdict was apparently surprising to some commentators. Continuing my theme, suppose a cold case review took place many years later and the same DNA evidence came to light as considered for real by the Court of Appeal in 2002.

In this scenario, would the DPP have approved Hanratty's retrial and would the Court of Appeal have quashed his original acquittal? I'm not so sure they would have done. Consider just some of the following questions:

* Do we know precisely how Hanratty's and Miss Storie's items were tested in the early 1960s?
* Did the testing procedures then meet the standards now in place relating to the safety of DNA evidence?
* Although we know where these items were subsequently located in the 1990s, do we know where they were during the intervening thirty years (post trial) and who handled them during that time?
* Can we be satisfied what glass fragments, which might have come from a vial or tube, were doing with certain of the items and what impact any of its possible content might have had?
* Did these storage procedures meet the standards now in place relating to the safety of DNA evidence?

I believe any reasonable person would be hard pressed to answer ''yes'' to any of the above questions. I reiterate that this doesn't mean Hanratty was innocent but do suspect the Court of Appeal would not have been nearly so keen to rely on the DNA evidence and find it ''compelling'' if the original verdict had been different.

All to aid debate and, of course, a hypothetical scenario but it does make me wonder ....

This is an excellent and thought-provoking post and, in light of the concerns shown only this week about the reliability of DNA evidence presented at the Stephen Lawrence trial, it must surely deepen doubts many people have over the DNA samples extracted from the A6 garments.

[caz]

It can only 'deepen' doubts held by those who didn't believe Hanratty was the gunman and rapist. The DNA evidence failed to indicate that anyone other than Hanratty could have committed the crime. It only indicated, rightly or wrongly, that Hanratty was guilty as convicted. Throw out the DNA and you still have a gunman and rapist to find, while most people seem to have accepted Hanratty as that man, who was identified by the victim and lied in court about his movements, changing his story when things got desperate.

In Meredith Kercher's case, it boils down to whether her murder required more than one person to commit. If so, the DNA evidence again fails to indicate any suspect other than those originally found guilty.

Do what you like with the DNA evidence but dismissing it does not in itself indicate innocence.

Love,

Caz
X

[OneRound]

I believe any reasonable person would be hard pressed to answer ''yes'' to any of the above questions. I reiterate that this doesn't mean Hanratty was innocent but do suspect the Court of Appeal would not have been nearly so keen to rely on the DNA evidence and find it ''compelling'' if the original verdict had been different.

Julie - thanks for your recent feedback. Valued and appreciated.

Caz - I restate the above paragraph as you appear to have missed it or, at least in my view, not given it sufficient weight when preparing your last post. I'll reply more fully to that soon. When I do, I'll make reference to what the Court of Appeal said when quashing Derek Bentley's murder conviction. I assume you consider Bentley innocent in view of the Court of Appeal judgment - is that correct? It would be helpful to know when preparing my reply ....

[louisa]

At last I can post on this thread! For some reason I haven't been able to before. This thread was one of the reasons that I wanted to join this forum.

I've read almost every book about Hanratty so I know something about the case.

Regarding the exhibits containing DNA - only a small fragment of Valerie Storie's knickers were examined. What about the rest of the garment? Maybe that contained DNA from Peter Alphon?

Does anybody know if Valerie Storie was actually wearing her glasses before, during and after the attack? Her statement says something like "My spectacles were in my coat pocket". We know she was very short sighted and that should have been an issue that was raised at the trial.

Also.....wasn't it a far more likely scenario that Valerie and Michael were actually in the back seat of the car, not the front seat when the killer knocked on the window?

My main contention is that it just wasn't possible that Hanratty was in Slough on the night of the 22nd.

Timeline:

Monday 21st - Everybody - including the police and the defence lawyers - wholeheartedly agree that Hanratty was in London ALL DAY AND ALL NIGHT of the 21st. (He spent a long time at the France's and then went to a club in Soho where he was well known - he then spent the night at the Vienna Hotel).

Tuesday 22nd - During the morning Hanratty took a train to Liverpool where he went into the sweet shop and the billiards hall. As Hanratty was in London all the previous day there was NO WAY that Mrs. Dinwoody could have seen him on the Monday. She could only have seen him on Tuesday 22nd. This would be late afternoon.

Hanratty then took a coach/bus to Rhyl and arrived just as it was getting dark. He stayed at Ingledene......and the rest is history.

Nobody can be in two places at the same time.

I believe that the jury were confused by the second (Rhyl) alibi, which was the true one. It came just too late in the trial. The fact that Hanratty had admitted lying (about staying with friends in Liverpool on the night of the murder) did him no favours with the jury.

[Limehouse]

Welcome Louisa! Lovely to have you aboard. I agree completely. There are reasons why Hanratty didn't mention Rhyl from the outset and I would like to dicuss these in due course.

Meanwhile, welcome once again. You will be a valuable contributor, I am sure.

Julie