a6 murder

[SteveS]

Hello Victor

...I took the comments from the Reed\Garmson ruling quoted previously where Jamieson obviously told the judges he was going to be withdrawing his comments, only he didn't, he qualified them.

I am glad that you now concede that Jamieson didn't withdraw his comments.

He could read his letters and reply to them.

Jamieson did reply. See here http://www.theforensicinstitute.com/...y%20letter.htm

...Fair enough, I can accept that I was misled by inaccurate information from official sources.

Wouldn't be the first time either eh Victor? The Hanratty judgement in 2002 for instance.

...have you managed to establish whether the "3rd aliquot" is still available or not?

You now have doubts Victor about the DNA evidence in Hanratty. You would now like that 3rd aliquot (if available) to be quantified, as in Reed, to show whether or not the amount of DNA was above the stochastic threshold.

In addition the stochastic threshold is between 100-200pg, and that still better than SGM+ so could assist in obtaining convictions.

Where is this stochastic threshold exactly, Victor? I take a purely scientific standpoint from which experiments are empirical so we must say that for now it is 200pg just to be on the safe side. Don't you agree as a scientist? As Jamieson quite rightly points out, above 200pg with mixed LCN profiles;

Other complex, and as yet unanswered, questions remain. Many LCN profiles are mixtures, containing small amounts of DNA from two or more people. Does the 200pg limit apply to the total template DNA or to one or other of the contributors which, if the total is 200pg must by definition be less than that?

Found @ http://www.theforensicinstitute.com/...institute2.htm

So even over 200pg we still have problems with LCN.

As I said LCN is a dead duck. It is a extremely expensive technique to perform and it is going to be too expensive for the CPS and therefore the police to carry on using it for evidential purposes. As an investigative or missing person identification tool it may still have a purpose but who is going to foot the bill for the cost of that? The FSS is in financial meltdown so it wont be them Victor!

You seem to be talking only about convictions. What do you think of using DNA to actually exonerate the convicted. How many times has this happened in the UK. Once as far as I can see (Sean Hodgson). In the US as at 21/1/10 249 prisoners convicted of serious offences (some on death row) have been exonearted due to the efforts of Barry Scheck and Peter Neufeld and their Innocence Project and DNA testing.

In Hanratty the LCN DNA evidence confirmed the original verdict, so even if you get to a point where all the LCN data says is "Hanratty cannot be excluded from the possible contributors to the DNA sample on the knickers" that's still a long way away from saying he's innocent.

So at last you now concede that LCN cannot exclude an individual from a profile. Conversly SGM+ can only say for certain that an individual can be excluded. Therefore no DNA technique can say for absolute certain that a person can be included.

As far as innocence is concerned that will always be a problem for anyone convicted of a serious crime who seeks to clear their name. The laws of appeal are not interested one iota in guilt or innocent.

Susan May, who in all certainty was innocent, still hasn't had her conviction quashed. She was released on licence after serving her tariff of 12 years for murder. Even if she did manage to overturn her conviction it still wouldn't mean she is seen as being innocent in the eyes of the law. Legally it would mean that her conviction was in some way technical flawed.

[Victor]

Wouldn't be the first time either eh Victor? The Hanratty judgement in 2002 for instance.

Hi Steve,

How exactly has that misled?

You now have doubts Victor about the DNA evidence in Hanratty. You would now like that 3rd aliquot (if available) to be quantified, as in Reed, to show whether or not the amount of DNA was above the stochastic threshold.

No, I have no doubts about it. It's just that if there was a 3rd aliquot then it could be quantified as in Reed. Which would mean that the odd straggler, like yourself, who doubt the stated results would then have an even weaker position. I can easily turn your argument on its head... You're claiming that lack of quantitation is a valid reason to doubt the result, and you don't want it quantified, so therefore are you doubting your doubt (ie., expressing confidence) in the stated result?

Where is this stochastic threshold exactly, Victor? I take a purely scientific standpoint from which experiments are empirical so we must say that for now it is 200pg just to be on the safe side. Don't you agree as a scientist? As Jamieson quite rightly points out, above 200pg with mixed LCN profiles;

I don't know the exact limit, I've never tested it myself, but the published advice is between 100-200pg. And it depends what you mean by "safe side".

So even over 200pg we still have problems with LCN.

...if it's a mixture.

You seem to be talking only about convictions. What do you think of using DNA to actually exonerate the convicted. How many times has this happened in the UK. Once as far as I can see (Sean Hodgson). In the US as at 21/1/10 249 prisoners convicted of serious offences (some on death row) have been exonearted due to the efforts of Barry Scheck and Peter Neufeld and their Innocence Project and DNA testing.

I think that using LCN or any DNA technique to exonerate people is a great thing, the fewer innocent people in jail or executed, the better.

So at last you now concede that LCN cannot exclude an individual from a profile. Conversly SGM+ can only say for certain that an individual can be excluded. Therefore no DNA technique can say for absolute certain that a person can be included.

No. You interpreted my comment absolutely wrongly. No DNA technique can say that someone didn't handle an object, for example, the person could be wearing gloves and not leave traces of their DNA. It just gives a very good indication that someone has come into contact with an object. It's very good at paternity tests, and identifying bodily fluids like semen, or who smoked a cigarette, and conversely saying whose bodily fluids a stain isn't.

As far as innocence is concerned that will always be a problem for anyone convicted of a serious crime who seeks to clear their name. The laws of appeal are not interested one iota in guilt or innocent.

No, as you pointed out with Sean Hodgson, and Stefan Kiszko new techniques are being used to identify the genuinly innocent.

KR,
Vic.

[caz]

I'm confused - as usual.

I thought the appeal found that the original case against Hanratty was strong enough without the DNA results, but even stronger with. In short, no reasonable doubt could be established and the DNA provided a more than reasonable explanation for that failure.

So how can his conviction ever be declared unsafe after all, whether the DNA technique used is eventually declared 'unreliable' across the board, or it were shown exactly how some DNA from Hanratty could have come into contact with the knickers and/or hankie after he became a suspect?

If this could have happened with an innocent suspect, it could have happened with a guilty one, just the same. The most anyone could hope for would be that the DNA evidence against Hanratty had finally to be left out of the equation. Ditching the DNA in the future will certainly not get an alternative suspect in the frame, any more than a 'creative' interpretation of the results can put one in there now.

So what possible difference would it make, without a 100% reliable alibi for Hanratty next time round - or fresh evidence of some other man's guilt?

What are the realistic options in the event that the DNA evidence in this case is eventually disregarded? I can't for the life of me see how its absence is going to conjure up the reasonable doubt needed if Hanratty's conviction is ever to be declared legally unsound, never mind help to establish his innocence.

And I don't really get why anyone waiting for such miracles would advise the rest of us not to hold our breath.

Love,

Caz
X

[SteveS]

I thought the appeal found that the original case against Hanratty was strong enough without the DNA results, but even stronger with. In short, no reasonable doubt could be established and the DNA provided a more than reasonable explanation for that failure.

As at the judgement at p211

...In our judgment for reasons we have explained the DNA evidence establishes beyond doubt that James Hanratty was the murderer. The DNA evidence made what was a strong case even stronger. Equally the strength of the evidence overall pointing to the guilt of the appellant supports our conclusion as to the DNA.

Yes you were confused and wrong again, no change there then.

And as no DNA evidence alone, according to Reed, is enough in itself to convict, then the judges in Hanratty will be subject to a challenge over thier ruling, even if it has to go to Europe.

Don't hold your breath...we fear that you may die! God forbid

[Victor]

I thought the appeal found that the original case against Hanratty was strong enough without the DNA results, but even stronger with. In short, no reasonable doubt could be established and the DNA provided a more than reasonable explanation for that failure.

Hi Caz,

That's exactly how I interpret the sentence "The DNA evidence made what was a strong case even stronger." that Steve quoted.

And the next sentence he quoted "Equally the strength of the evidence overall pointing to the guilt of the appellant supports our conclusion as to the DNA." says they are using the original trial evidence to confirm the validity of the DNA, which obviously must be really galling for detractors of LCN.

KR,
Vic.

[Graham]

Hi Caz,

That's exactly how I interpret the sentence "The DNA evidence made what was a strong case even stronger." that Steve quoted.

And the next sentence he quoted "Equally the strength of the evidence overall pointing to the guilt of the appellant supports our conclusion as to the DNA." says they are using the original trial evidence to confirm the validity of the DNA, which obviously must be really galling for detractors of LCN.

KR,
Vic.

Precisely, Vic. Except the above seems to be overlooked by certain people on this thread.

I'd certainly like to know who, exactly, will be mounting the forthcoming challenge to, quote 'the judges ruling' unquote, in the A6 Case.

Cheers,

Graham

[caz]

As at the judgement at p211

Quote:
...In our judgment for reasons we have explained the DNA evidence establishes beyond doubt that James Hanratty was the murderer. The DNA evidence made what was a strong case even stronger. Equally the strength of the evidence overall pointing to the guilt of the appellant supports our conclusion as to the DNA.


Yes you were confused and wrong again, no change there then.

And as no DNA evidence alone, according to Reed, is enough in itself to convict, then the judges in Hanratty will be subject to a challenge over thier ruling, even if it has to go to Europe.

Well, Steve, I really don’t see what I got wrong. Did you think I was trying to quote directly?

Let’s shove the DNA to one side for a minute, shall we, so we can see more clearly what we would be left with, as per the judgement:

‘a strong case… the strength of the evidence overall pointing to the guilt of the appellant…’

No DNA evidence was used in making a case against Hanratty; it wasn’t needed for it to be ruled a ‘strong’ one in its own right; and there is no suggestion that it was required to achieve or maintain a legally ‘safe’ status for the original conviction. Had it been used to transform a case judged to be legally flawed, weak or non-existent without it, then of course your observation that DNA evidence ‘alone’ is not enough to convict anyone would be relevant. As it is, the DNA evidence ‘alone’ is not what is keeping Hanratty convicted today.

In short, Europe can make spaghetti hoops out of the DNA evidence if it likes, because unless a future challenger to the ruling can produce that crucial but elusive element of reasonable doubt from the original case material, forcing them to downgrade their ‘strong’ original case accordingly, Hanratty will remain convicted of this crime until hell freezes over.

So I ask again: how will ditching the DNA and forgetting we ever had it make any difference to a ruling that effectively said the original case wasn't broken and didn't need fixing?

Love,

Caz
X

[RonIpstone]

I disagree with the Lord Chief when he says that the Hanratty case was a 'strong case' before the admission of the DNA evidence. It wasn't. At the time the case held the record for the longest murder trial in this country, it culminated in a summing up by the trial judge, Gorman J, for an acquittal and it took the jury many hours to come to a verdict. The case and its aftermath spawned several books, most of which leaned to the view that there had been a miscarriage of justice. The Criminal Cases Review Commission must likewise have felt that there had been a miscarriage of justice for it to have made the referral to the Court of Appeal. To hint that it was an open and shut case is wrong, to describe it as a strong case is hyperbole.

Yet the DNA evidence has persuaded me that Hanratty was guilty, or to phrase it more accurately, that no one could have committed the crime other than Jim Hanratty. It must also have persuaded the Hanratty family's legal team that at least Peter Alphon did not commit the crime, as Mr Mansfield QC made that admission.

I am open to persuasion that the DNA evidence is wrong, but in this case it is going to take some explaining as to how in 2002 the rapist's DNA could not be detected when we know it was on the knickers fragment in 1961, yet the DNA of Storie and Gregsten and the contaminating DNA of Hanratty could still be detected.

Even if the DNA analysis proves unreliable, that the murderer/rapist's DNA should disappear and be replaced by the DNA of Hanratty, is a coincidence too far. When added to the other evidence, of which admittedly much is circumstantial, it is sufficient to convince me that Jim did it.

This case will never come before the Courts again, whether in this country or in Europe, of that I am sure.

[caz]

To hint that it was an open and shut case is wrong, to describe it as a strong case is hyperbole.

Hi Ron,

Just a small clarification for others here. As you will have seen, I was careful throughout that last post of mine to steer clear of any personal opinion about the strength or otherwise of the original case, with wording like: 'as per the judgement'; 'for it to be ruled'; 'a legally ‘safe’ status'; 'a future challenger to the ruling'; 'forcing them to downgrade their ‘strong’ original case; 'a ruling that effectively said' and so on.

Like you, I am open to persuasion that the DNA evidence is wrong, and that the original case was as leaky as a very leaky thing. I just haven't seen a remotely plausible explanation yet for the specific results, in the event that it was a different man who committed the rape and left his semen on the knickers. Simply calling for the DNA identifications to be disregarded as inherently 'unreliable' has always seemed like a major cop-out to me.

And as I said, I can't see how this, by itself, would successfully challenge the overall judgement. The challenge would surely involve persuading the right people that the original case (ie before the DNA reared its unwelcome head) was the opposite of 'strong'.

I can only wish 'em luck if they try. But I'm only too glad if the right man was taken off the streets. It must be awful for anyone living in hope that a man was hanged for nothing while the killer got away with it.

Love,

Caz
X

[P.L.A]

Hi Graham

It’s interesting you are starting to believe that the original jury’s verdict wasn’t particularly perverse.

As John Maynard Keynes, the great economist, once said “When I realise I have made a mistake, I change my mind – what do you do?”

One of the great minds of the twentieth century was humble enough to accept that consistency could well be a weakness, and not necessarily a strength.

Peter.

[P.L.A]

Am I alone in thinking there is a general misconception about the Appeal Court Judgment?

The popular view emphasises the Judges’ statement that “ In our judgment for reasons we have explained the DNA evidence establishes beyond doubt that James Hanratty was the murderer”.

But the Court had rejected, one by one, all seventeen grounds for appeal – and these rejections had nothing to do with the DNA evidence. The Judges seem to be satisfied that Hanratty received a fair trial and that the verdict wasn’t perverse. In addition to this, they believe the DNA evidence points to the Appellant’s certain guilt.

Maybe it’s me that has got the wrong end of the stick.

Peter

[SteveS]

Hi Peter

Am I alone in thinking there is a general misconception about the Appeal Court Judgment?

Who knows?

The popular view emphasises the Judges’ statement that “ In our judgment for reasons we have explained the DNA evidence establishes beyond doubt that James Hanratty was the murderer”.

It may well be the popular view but it is the explicit view of the judges.

But the Court had rejected, one by one, all seventeen grounds for appeal – and these rejections had nothing to do with the DNA evidence. The Judges seem to be satisfied that Hanratty received a fair trial and that the verdict wasn’t perverse. In addition to this, they believe the DNA evidence points to the Appellant’s certain guilt.

P202 of the judgement says:

As to the application under section 23 Criminal Appeal Act 1968 now to rely upon the same evidence (which goes to the question of the identity of the killer), the DNA evidence to which we have referred leads conclusively to the view that this material does not render the verdict unsafe.

This was declared after ground number 13 of 17 in total.

Maybe it’s me that has got the wrong end of the stick.

Maybe.

Do you not think that the judges used their absolute certainty in the DNA to dismiss the appelants grounds?

[Victor]

The Judges seem to be satisfied that Hanratty received a fair trial and that the verdict wasn’t perverse. In addition to this, they believe the DNA evidence points to the Appellant’s certain guilt.

Hi Peter,

Paragraph 208 of the judgment certainly supports your comments:-

In our judgment if the non-directions stood alone, even without the DNA evidence, they would not justify the quashing of the conviction.

KR,
Vic.

[jimarilyn]

Further re. Court of Appeal judgment

Just re-reading the impeccable "Court of Appeal" judgment ( I have loads of patience ).
At the end of paragraph 12 we come to the sub-heading "The Facts".
Just 19 words into the first paragraph of "The Facts" we arrive at their first deliberate mistake.
This careless and very biased judgment states quite clearly that Miss Storie was aged 23 at the time of the murder. She was not, she was 22.

A little further on, paragraph 21 makes very little sense.....

The man tied up Valerie Storie's arms. He said to Michael Gregsten, "I have got to find something to tie you up with". When it was suggested that he should use his tie, the man said, "No, I need that". Michael Gregsten was made to open the boot of the car and the man found some cord which, together with Michael Gregsten's tie, he used to tie Valerie Storie's hands. Gregsten returned to the driver's seat and the gunman returned to the backseat.

So the man ties up Storie's ARMS . Then he and Mike Gregsten get out of the car and go to the boot to get some cord. He then ties Storie's HANDS (he must have been outside the car to do this) with the cord/Gregsten's tie, before he and Gregsten return to their seats
This sequence of events does not dovetail at all with Storie's trial evidence...........


"He (the man) said 'I want to kip, but first I must tie you up. What about cutting that rug up ?' We told him we had nothing to cut it up with. So he said to Mike, 'Let me look in the boot of the car to see if you have any rope'. He made Mike get out of the car, go with him to the boot, and there was a small piece of rope in the tool kit which he took. They got back into the car again, Mike in the driving seat and the man in the back still pointing the gun at us. He told Mike to hand over his tie, which Mike did, and he told me to turn around and face him and put my hands together in front of my body so that he could tie my wrists. As he put the tie against my wrists I held them apart, so that although he thought he was tying them up very tightly, it was in fact loose when I did put my arms together. Having tied my wrists with the tie, he then proceeded to do the same with the piece of rope, tying one end of it to the car door handle...When he had finished tying me up he said to Mike, 'I have got to find something to tie you up with' and I said, 'Why do you not tie us up together, just leave us outside and tie us up, and then you can go'."


Confused ? You soon will be

[Victor]

A little further on, paragraph 21 makes very little sense.....

Hi James,

It depends entirely upon how you read that paragraph, if you insert extra "then"'s into it then I'm not surprised you are confused.

The man tied up Valerie Storie's arms.
A first summary statement, and they then go into detail as to how this was achieved...
He said to Michael Gregsten, "I have got to find something to tie you up with". When it was suggested that he should use his tie, the man said, "No, I need that". Michael Gregsten was made to open the boot of the car and the man found some cord which, together with Michael Gregsten's tie, he used to tie Valerie Storie's hands.
And then as an introduction to the next paragraph, it's important to explicitly state where Gregsten and the gunman end up as we're getting to the fatal shots, so we get...
Gregsten returned to the driver's seat and the gunman returned to the backseat.

As to the difference between tying someone's ARMS and HANDS, I don't consider those two to be significantly different, do you consider wrists to be part of someone's hand, or part of their arms, or both? Is tying someone's hands feasible, or is it the wrists that are tied? Handcuffs definitely go round the wrists. Does "arms" include hands? What about "limbs"? Surely tying one also incapacitates the other.

So the man ties up Storie's ARMS . Then he and Mike Gregsten get out of the car and go to the boot to get some cord. He then ties Storie's HANDS (he must have been outside the car to do this) with the cord/Gregsten's tie, before he and Gregsten return to their seats

I completely disagree with your assumption that the gunman must have been outside the car when the hands were tied.

This sequence of events does not dovetail at all with Storie's trial evidence...........

I think it does.

KR,
Vic.