Casebook Forums

Casebook Forums (http://forum.casebook.org/index.php)
-   A6 Murders (http://forum.casebook.org/forumdisplay.php?f=116)
-   -   A6 Rebooted (http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=5390)

Limehouse 02-02-2011 05:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RonIpstone (Post 163727)
Hello Tony,

I must make it clear that I do not believe all people from Bedfordshire to be dimwits, only a high proportion and this was reflected in the intellectual composition of the jury.

Ron

I assume you carried out relevant tests to determine the intellectual composition of the jury? You were quite critical of people you think are not qualified to comment on the scientific aspects of this case so could we know how you know so much about the intellectual capabilities of a jury that sat in a courtroom almost 50 years ago?

Limehouse 02-02-2011 05:57 PM

Derrick wrote:

The actual results are unknown to anyone here so Victor must support his opinion with solid evidence as source tissue is unknowable from DNA testing.

Vic wrote:

Paragraph 120 from the judgment:
Dr Evison [the Defence expert] seems to accept that in the case of the knicker fragment the contaminant would have to be semen.


Whether he was the defence expert or not - how could he 'seem to accept' something that is not actually able to be established according to current scientific knowledge?

Was that line actually in the judgement and if so is Dr Evison being misunderstood or misquoted? Surely a scientist would not 'seem to accept' something?

caz 02-02-2011 06:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Derrick (Post 163764)
There is a Tarleton Street in Liverpool, Rhyl, Burnley and Manchester.

Hi Derrick,

But Hanratty only claimed to be in Liverpool, and later Rhyl, when his semen (unless evidence to the contrary surfaces) was being deposited on a woman's underwear considerably further south.

There must have been a reason for Hanratty to suddenly decide he had gone on to Rhyl. Now if you accept that he genuinely had been asking for Liverpool's Tarleton St, while in Liverpool, and was also familiar with Rhyl's seafront and the roads leading directly off it, do you not find it a trifle odd that he said nothing, while fighting for his life during the trial, about asking for those rather specific directions before moving on to Rhyl, and then gave Rhyl, with its own very easy-to-find Tarleton St, as his shiny new improved alibi, when Liverpool's example could surely have saved his neck if only he had thought to mention his enquiry there?

None of it smells right and the jury smelled rotten fish.

Love,

Caz
X

NickB 02-02-2011 07:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by caz (Post 163771)
do you not find it a trifle odd that he said nothing, while fighting for his life during the trial, about asking for those rather specific directions before moving on to Rhyl

I thought he told the police (via Mr Kleinmann) about asking for Tarleton Road on 13th October, just after arriving at Bedford for the Skillet / Blackall / Trower id parade.

Victor 02-03-2011 09:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Limehouse (Post 163763)
That is a complete misrepresentation of what I was explaining to Babybird. Babybird was speculating on people's reaction to the DNA analysis in other cases and she specifically mentioned Jo Yates in Bristol - the scientific details of which have not been made public. There is a difference between comparing cases that have been tested and found wanting and cases that have not even seen the inside of a court room.

Hi Julie,

How did I misrepresent you? I flipped your argument but maintained the logic.

The point is that we have results in Hanratty, and results in Mr E and many many others. Derrick is arguing that the conclusions from the results in Mr E were wrong, therefore the conclusions from the results in Hanratty are likely to be wrong. This is ridiculous because he is ignoring the conclusions from the results in the many other cases, such as Napper where the LCN conclusions were correct. Therefore it's just as valid to argue that the Napper conclusions are correct therefore the Hanratty conclusions are correct.

KR,
Vic.

Victor 02-03-2011 10:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Limehouse (Post 163768)
how could he 'seem to accept' something that is not actually able to be established according to current scientific knowledge?

Hi Julie,

You are wrong. It is possible to discriminate sperm heads from other DNA sources.

Secondly, presumably he refused to state he accepts the proposition - otherwise he'd be fired just like Lincoln was, so much for an unbiased defence - but he could not honestly and legitimately deny it.

Quote:

Was that line actually in the judgement and if so is Dr Evison being misunderstood or misquoted? Surely a scientist would not 'seem to accept' something?
Yes the line was in paragraph 120 of the judgment, and I gave the link to it too so you could see for yourself. Here it is again -> http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2002/1141.html

I don't think he was either misunderstood nor misquoted - the judgment is the 3 judges opinion of what he said, so the above is a plausible explanation but not the only possibility.

KR,
Vic.

caz 02-07-2011 01:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NickB (Post 164359)
I thought he told the police (via Mr Kleinmann) about asking for Tarleton Road on 13th October, just after arriving at Bedford for the Skillet / Blackall / Trower id parade.

Hi Nick,

Do you happen to know exactly what Hanratty was able to say about his alleged request(s) for directions, ie before the sweet shop lady was sought out?

What I'm trying to get at is how many details were confirmed independently by the sweet shop lady; how many new ones she gave, that Hanratty never mentioned; and why - if the two stories had enough in common - could Hanratty's defence not have made a hell of a lot more of this in order to show, beyond reasonable doubt, that he was at least in Liverpool at some point during the critical period he so badly needed to account for?

Did the defence so let him down on this point that he realised Rhyl was now an absolute necessity to introduce? Or did he let himself down because his version did not match the truth?

Love,

Caz
X

babybird67 02-07-2011 02:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by caz (Post 164364)
Hi Nick,

Do you happen to know exactly what Hanratty was able to say about his alleged request(s) for directions, ie before the sweet shop lady was sought out?

What I'm trying to get at is how many details were confirmed independently by the sweet shop lady; how many new ones she gave, that Hanratty never mentioned; and why - if the two stories had enough in common - could Hanratty's defence not have made a hell of a lot more of this in order to show, beyond reasonable doubt, that he was at least in Liverpool at some point during the critical period he so badly needed to account for?

Did the defence so let him down on this point that he realised Rhyl was now an absolute necessity to introduce? Or did he let himself down because his version did not match the truth?

Love,

Caz
X

As far as I can remember, Caz, the details themselves did not match in any respect. Mrs Dinwoodie describes someone who spoke with either a Welsh or Scottish aceent; it doesn't matter how much anyone tries to twist that, neither of those accents resembles a London accent in any way.

Mrs Dinwoodie also said she herself was too busy and barely spoke to him anyway, and other customers took him to the door and pointed out a bus stop and direction to him.

I don't have the books I'm afraid, but from what I can remember, when examined closely, the details don't match up, and that is why the alibi was not able to be made more of in court. It is the Rhyl alibi all over again in that the details are all mis-matching (e.g. witnesses alleging they saw Hanratty at a time he could not have been there/said himself he wasnt there).

And let's not forget this was all supposed to have happened on a day when it is known Hanratty was in London with the Frances.

Graham 02-07-2011 03:03 PM

Liverpool Alibi
 
Big problem for JH was that immediately after being charged, Kleinmann passed his statement to the police before initiating inquiries on behalf of the defence! Even Woffinden implies that this was not clever. What it meant was that the police got to Mrs Dinwoodie before the defence, who had no chance to interview her before she'd "identified" as JH the one photo she was shown by the police, and thus thrown the entire identification into doubt.

Graham

caz 02-07-2011 04:06 PM

Thanks BB and Graham.

What I'm really after is how Hanratty described the whole scenario of asking for those directions. Did he mention asking in a sweet shop? Did he mention Liverpool's Tarleton St in so many words when including this detail in his alibi? If so, why is there a question mark over whether he asked for Tarleton St/Rd/Carlton St/Rd or just something that may have sounded like it to the sweet shop lady, who was apparently taking so little notice? If not, how could anyone have confirmed what he asked for, if he couldn't even remember himself where he needed to go?

I agree entirely about the accent being a problem. People want it both ways: unfair if his recognisably Cockney accent set him up on the id parade; unfair if it was so unrecognisably Cockney that a Scouser took it as Welsh or Scottish.

It was bad enough showing just the one photo to Mrs Dinwoodie (I don't think it would be admissible today) but if she could already have seen a single photo of JH in the media it could have been a classic case of getting two occasions mixed up: recognising JH from a very recent media picture and honestly thinking she was recognising the man who, some time previously, had come into her shop. There's no going back if something like this could have happened and it's a very common problem with eye witness testimony.

Another reason why Hanratty should have mentioned it much sooner if he really went on to Rhyl that night and needed someone he saw there - just one would have done - to be able to confirm it before the media circus got going.

Love,

Caz
X


All times are GMT. The time now is 01:18 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.