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:
Motive, Method and Madness: Same motive = same killer - by Pcdunn 4 hours ago.
Conferences and Meetings: American Jack the Ripper - True Crime Conference, Baltimore, April 7-8, 2018 - by ChrisGeorge 4 hours ago.
Non-Ripper Books by Ripper Authors: Mob Town by John Bennett - by ChrisGeorge 4 hours ago.
Motive, Method and Madness: Same motive = same killer - by Pcdunn 7 hours ago.
Martha Tabram: Probibility of Martha Tabram Being a JtR Victim - by etenguy 8 hours ago.
Martha Tabram: Probibility of Martha Tabram Being a JtR Victim - by Wickerman 10 hours ago.

Most Popular Threads:
Motive, Method and Madness: Same motive = same killer - (30 posts)
Martha Tabram: Probibility of Martha Tabram Being a JtR Victim - (9 posts)
General Suspect Discussion: Was Jack caught by London underworld? - (5 posts)
Non-Ripper Books by Ripper Authors: Mob Town by John Bennett - (2 posts)
Maybrick, James: 25 YEARS OF THE DIARY OF JACK THE RIPPER: THE TRUE FACTS by Robert Smith - (2 posts)
Conferences and Meetings: American Jack the Ripper - True Crime Conference, Baltimore, April 7-8, 2018 - (1 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
  #3881  
Old 12-17-2016, 08:28 AM
ansonman ansonman is offline
Detective
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 140
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by OneRound View Post
Ansonman - so as not to be ungracious, I thank you and present you with my own Christmas gift. An imaginary leather bound print of the Court of Appeal's 1998 judgement in respect of Derek Bentley with certain sections heavily underlined.

From this, you will note that the Court of Appeal considered Bentley's trial to be unfair; as the Court stated, he was denied ''that fair trial which is the birthright of every British citizen''. Consequently Bentley's conviction was ruled unsafe and quashed.

However, you will also see that the Court commented, ''a properly directed jury would have been entitled to convict''. That comment is often overlooked and is far from a ringing endorsement of Bentley's innocence. More fence panels perhaps needing to be ordered.

Season's greetings to you and all,

OneRound
OneRound, your thoughtful and thought provoking gift is much appreciated.

I am well and truly off the fence when it comes to Bentley and Craig.
Even if Bentley did utter the words "let him have it Chris" (which they both denied was ever said), it seems to me that such a phrase would hardly have been uttered as a request to kill, especially from someone with the mental age of eleven. If Bentley had wanted Craig to shoot Miles, it seems to me he would have said so by saying "shoot the bastard" or something very similar.

"Let him have it Chris" was never an instruction shoot, in my book.

Of course, none of that, nor the posthumous pardon nor the quashing was of any help to poor Derek. But it is yet another tragic example of an innocent man being hanged.

Regards,

Ansonman
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #3882  
Old 12-17-2016, 11:37 AM
OneRound OneRound is offline
Detective
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 399
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ansonman View Post
OneRound, your thoughtful and thought provoking gift is much appreciated.

I am well and truly off the fence when it comes to Bentley and Craig.
Even if Bentley did utter the words "let him have it Chris" (which they both denied was ever said), it seems to me that such a phrase would hardly have been uttered as a request to kill, especially from someone with the mental age of eleven. If Bentley had wanted Craig to shoot Miles, it seems to me he would have said so by saying "shoot the bastard" or something very similar.

"Let him have it Chris" was never an instruction shoot, in my book.

Of course, none of that, nor the posthumous pardon nor the quashing was of any help to poor Derek. But it is yet another tragic example of an innocent man being hanged.

Regards,

Ansonman
Thanks, Ansonman.

''We reject the submissions that the officers' evidence of matters which incriminated the appellant, particularly the shout ''Let him have it, Chris'' should be regarded as necessarily unreliable or invented.''

I supply that further extract from the Court of Appeal's 1998 judgement in respect of Derek Bentley not to quibble with your own view but to emphasise that despite that rejection and their being of that opinion the Court still quashed Bentley's conviction. That was also in spite of them regarding the case against Bentley to be ''a substantial one''. The overriding reason by far that the Court quashed Bentley's conviction was the unfairness of his trial.

The reason for the unfairness in Bentley's trial was entirely due to the conduct of the judge. That particular reason cannot be claimed as regards the trial of James Hanratty. However, that does not exclude unfairness applying to Hanratty's trial. Unfairness can manifest itself in other forms.

As shown in the Bentley judgement, unfairness can be a valid reason to quash a conviction regardless of views as to the likelihood of guilt. That is where I come from on this forum.

Sorry to probably exhaust the point but it is rather my mantra here.

A happy Christmas to you and all,

OneRound
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #3883  
Old 12-19-2016, 05:11 AM
Alfie Alfie is offline
Constable
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 90
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Graham View Post
While we're handing out kudos (and otherwise), I should just like to highlight the following, posted by Alfie in response to a newcomer.
I think what Alfie says sums up very neatly my attitude to the A6 Case, and it was well said.

Originally Posted by Sherlock:



Alfie replied:


The short answer is, Hanratty was guilty. To argue otherwise will suck you in to conspiracy theories so convoluted that you'll require TWO tinfoil hats to ward off the dictates of the facts and logic.


Anyway, it's (supposedly) the season of goodwill, so I wish all posters very Happy Holidays!

Graham
And a very Merry Christmas to you too, Graham.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #3884  
Old 12-24-2016, 02:45 AM
Limehouse Limehouse is offline
Chief Inspector
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Cambridgeshire, England.
Posts: 1,874
Default

Wishing you all, whatever side you sit on, a very Merry Christmas and a healthy and happy 2017.

Kind regards,

Julie
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #3885  
Old 01-07-2017, 04:39 PM
JamesMac JamesMac is offline
Cadet
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 12
Default Dna

Dear all,

I have not had an opportunity to look in on this thread for some considerable time for which I apologise. I had run out of ideas, other commitments took over and my interest in this case was put on the back burner. Looking in again I thought that it might prove helpful to share an article I came across regarding DNA analysis for which I provide a link below, though I cannot guarantee the link will work!

[url="http://www.sciencemag.org/2016/03/when-dna-snares-innocent"]

The article has a promotional feel about it but I thought that the following extract had some relevance to the Hanratty case:

“DNA analysis can become even trickier when a mix of DNA from various potential suspects is found in a single crime scene sample. With a simple sample, analysts look at two sets of peaks at a given locus: one for the victim and one for the perpetrator. With mixtures, they’re looking at bunches of peaks, with no indication of which pairs go together, or which source they came from—aside from those of the known victim. At that point the analysis becomes highly subjective.

Studies have confirmed this. In 2013, geneticist Michael Coble of the National Institute of Standards and Technology in Gaithersburg, Maryland, set up a hypothetical scenario in which a mix of DNA from several people had been found on a ski mask left at a crime scene after a series of robberies. Coble asked 108 labs across the country to determine whether a separate DNA sample, which he posited had come from a suspect in the robberies, was also part of the mix. Seventy-three of the labs got it wrong, saying the suspect's DNA was part of the mix when, in fact, it was not. “It’s the Wild West out there,” Coble says. “Too much is left to the analysts’ discretion.” “.

If the above is anywhere near correct it seems to me that the probability figure of 1 in a billion or so suggested by the FSS report should be amended to something like 2 out of 3 as approximately two thirds of the labs involved in the above test provided a false positive! Whilst the study was of course artificial it tends to suggest that the data in these sort of mixed sample cases can provide a wide variety of conclusions which I find somewhat disturbing.

Happy New Year to all.

James Mac
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #3886  
Old 01-08-2017, 04:58 AM
JamesMac JamesMac is offline
Cadet
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 12
Default Dna

Dear all,

Following on from my previous post I had intended to comment separately with regard to the DNA results from the handkerchief but wanted to split them to avoid one becoming too lengthy.

The DNA results from the handkerchief were not, apparently, from a mixed source but I wondered how confident we could be that the handkerchief tested was actually the handkerchief found wrapped round the gun? I note from the 2002 judgement that the handkerchief was originally tested on 25th August 1961 but was put to one side given that no traces of blood or semen could be found. On 9th October 1961 some of Hanratty’s clothing, taken from Louise Anderson’s flat, were submitted to the lab for tests. Hanratty would also no doubt have had a handkerchief in his possession when arrested (he habitually carried one as do most males of my acquaintance) so the lab could have been responsible for testing several.

Bearing in mind that the handkerchief eventually found by Bedfordshire Police was held within an open HMSO envelope I wonder what certainty there can be that two handkerchiefs were not transposed at some point? In particular I imagine that the police, possibly the lab as well as the jury might have taken the opportunity to compare the similarities between them. If so how confident can we be, whether the handkerchiefs were similar in appearance or not, that the right handkerchief was returned to the right envelope?

James Mac
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #3887  
Old 01-09-2017, 11:07 AM
Derrick Derrick is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 568
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JamesMac View Post
Bearing in mind that the handkerchief eventually found by Bedfordshire Police was held within an open HMSO envelope I wonder what certainty there can be that two handkerchiefs were not transposed at some point? In particular I imagine that the police, possibly the lab as well as the jury might have taken the opportunity to compare the similarities between them. If so how confident can we be, whether the handkerchiefs were similar in appearance or not, that the right handkerchief was returned to the right envelope?
Hi JamesMac

The envelope discovered by Beds police in 1997 was marked as "exhibit 37" as it was described at the trial.

Your views might undermine that, but I would like to TRY to give the prosecution EVERY benefit of the doubt based on the AVAILABLE evidence.

My view is is that the hanky was Hanratty's because the MtDNA tests done in 1997 found an extremely strong link to his brother Michael and mother Mary.

Happy New Year, welcome to the thread and ATB
Delboy
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #3888  
Old 01-11-2017, 02:35 AM
JamesMac JamesMac is offline
Cadet
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 12
Default

Hi Derrick,

Thank you for the welcome.

I note that the exhibit number for the handkerchief was actually 37 rather than the 35 mentioned in the 2002 appeal judgement which makes me slightly more doubtful of its provenance and less inclined to be as generous to the prosecution in terms of benefit of doubt!

I assume that the handkerchief was not tested for gunshot residue subsequent to its discovery by Bedfordshire Police in 1997? Whilst I appreciate that this would not definitively link the handkerchief to the gun (the Barry George case comes to mind regarding transfer of gunshot residue) it would at least provide greater certainty that the correct item had been tested.

My main concern is that it would have been completely natural for the handkerchief found with the gun to be closely compared to handkerchiefs found on Hanratty’s person or amongst his clothing (by the lab, police, jury etc.) and the items mistakenly transposed. Whilst I can imagine that both the lab and the police would have taken greater care to ensure this did not happen I am doubtful that there would have been any such worries in the jury room with the items passed round for examination with no great concern that they were returned to the correct evidence bag. Having said that I do not know whether any other handkerchiefs formed part of the material evidence, which was all taken into the jury room for the jury to examine if desired, or whether the exhibit ids simply refer to Hanratty’s clothing. Do you happen to have a full list of the exhibits?

Best wishes,

JamesMac
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #3889  
Old 01-11-2017, 07:14 AM
Derrick Derrick is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 568
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JamesMac View Post
...I note that the exhibit number for the handkerchief was actually 37 rather than the 35 mentioned in the 2002 appeal judgement...
Hi JamesMac
My mistake, the judgement is right on this.
Del
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #3890  
Old 01-11-2017, 07:19 AM
Derrick Derrick is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 568
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JamesMac View Post
...Do you happen to have a full list of the exhibits?...
I certainly do!

But I have just moved and my papers are still packed away in storage.

It may take a good few weeks before I can get them out again.

Bear with me until then.

Derrick

Last edited by Derrick : 01-11-2017 at 07:30 AM.
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 11:39 PM.


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