Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

A6 Rebooted

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • This particular angle originates from a classic piece of misdirection by Foot. When he describes how Mrs Dinwoodie said it happened on the Monday, he says that this was a problem for the prosecution.

    In fact it was a problem for the defence. If it was the Monday it was not Hanratty.

    To say "If he visited the sweetshop it must have been the Tuesday" is not a declaration that he did. The prosecution case was that he did not.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by NickB View Post
      This particular angle originates from a classic piece of misdirection by Foot. When he describes how Mrs Dinwoodie said it happened on the Monday, he says that this was a problem for the prosecution.

      In fact it was a problem for the defence. If it was the Monday it was not Hanratty.

      To say "If he visited the sweetshop it must have been the Tuesday" is not a declaration that he did. The prosecution case was that he did not.
      Straw man sentence:'IF' he visited the sweet shop it must have been the Tuesday,
      Is ,a declaration that he did!
      I.E. 'If I'm an English man I should get what's coming to me!'
      There is no declaration involved. Your just playing with the word 'IF'.
      If you get my drift.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by NickB View Post
        This particular angle originates from a classic piece of misdirection by Foot. When he describes how Mrs Dinwoodie said it happened on the Monday, he says that this was a problem for the prosecution.

        In fact it was a problem for the defence. If it was the Monday it was not Hanratty.

        To say "If he visited the sweetshop it must have been the Tuesday" is not a declaration that he did. The prosecution case was that he did not.
        Yes, I know what you mean.

        But he must have been in the sweetshop on the Tuesday because Dinwoodie's daughter (or was it granddaughter?) was in the shop on that day, serving behind the counter - Hanratty remembered her.

        Hanratty had to have been the unluckiest man in Britain - everything was against him.
        This is simply my opinion

        Comment


        • Originally posted by louisa View Post
          If Hanratty put the gun under the seat then that would be the work of a idiot wouldn't it? and as has been pointed out Hanratty (in many ways) wasn't stupid. If he was panicking he would have chucked it in the Thames.
          James Hanratty told his brother Michael that had he been the gunman he would not have been stupid enough to place the gun under the seat of a bus but would have thrown it in the River Thames. Just like anyone with any common sense would have done.
          *************************************
          "A body of men, HOLDING THEMSELVES ACCOUNTABLE TO NOBODY, ought not to be trusted by anybody." --Thomas Paine ["Rights of Man"]

          "Justice is an ideal which transcends the expedience of the State, or the sensitivities of Government officials, or private individuals. IT HAS TO BE PURSUED WHATEVER THE COST IN PEACE OF MIND TO THOSE CONCERNED." --'Justice of the Peace' [July 12th 1975]

          Comment


          • I believe it was planted by Dixie France in order to help frame Hanratty.

            I don't believe Dixie France knew the ultimate consequences of planting this evidence and I don't think he seriously thought it would lead to Hanratty being hanged, and that is possibly the reason he killed himself; he could not live with the consequences of his actions.
            This is simply my opinion

            Comment




            • "The Hanratty exhibits being taken into court"

              This photo shows just how careful they were with the exhibits!

              Everything was lumped together. Those items are from Gregston's car - the duffle bag belonging to Gregston that Alphon stated he thought was being thrown at him (and that's why he fired).

              I wouldn't be surprised if other exhibits, such as Valerie's underwear, were not inside that suitcase, along with the hankerchief and other stuff, for ease of transportation to court.
              This is simply my opinion

              Comment


              • I would. On 29- Dec-61 the pathologist, Dr Grant, examined Valerie Storie's slips and knickers and a portion of the crotch area of the knickers was removed. This fragment of the knickers (and a portion of the slip) were filed and not taken to trial.

                Comment


                • Those items are from Gregston's car - the duffle bag belonging to Gregston that Alphon stated he thought was being thrown at him (and that's why he fired).
                  And when describing his evening of murder and rape, Alphon was very careful to mention that he fired one shot only. This was a deliberate mistake, not the only one he dropped in. I've said all along that Alphon was a weirdo, but a canny weirdo for all that, and he made sure he pushed his totally fictitious story for all it was worth. He was nowhere near the car that night.

                  Graham
                  We are suffering from a plethora of surmise, conjecture and hypothesis. - Sherlock Holmes, The Adventure Of Silver Blaze

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by NickB View Post
                    I would. On 29- Dec-61 the pathologist, Dr Grant, examined Valerie Storie's slips and knickers and a portion of the crotch area of the knickers was removed. This fragment of the knickers (and a portion of the slip) were filed and not taken to trial.
                    So, what we have here is : On 29th, Dec "61. a portion of the crotch was removed from the knickers, for what reason? future DNA testing. Help us out with this one Sherlock please.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Graham View Post
                      And when describing his evening of murder and rape, Alphon was very careful to mention that he fired one shot only. This was a deliberate mistake, not the only one he dropped in. I've said all along that Alphon was a weirdo, but a canny weirdo for all that, and he made sure he pushed his totally fictitious story for all it was worth. He was nowhere near the car that night.

                      Graham
                      Well canny absolutely. Very careful during all his blabbing ,not to drop himself in the shite, by uttering anything only the killer would know.
                      Feeding occasional known rubbish like single shot with the gun did the trick.
                      A very skilled liar I always thought, and the sort of liar who mixes in truths with untruths, so the listener is not always sure how to take him.
                      You gave this 'lying style' a name some time back Graham ,I tried to find the post but wasn't successful. The internet covers the various types of liar, makes interesting reading, Alphons is I think the trickiest. He was involved somehow.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by moste View Post
                        On 29th, Dec "61. a portion of the crotch was removed from the knickers, for what reason? future DNA testing.
                        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.

                        Woffinden, on his website, claims he “tracked down surviving exhibits in the case and asked for these to be tested by DNA methods”.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Graham View Post
                          And when describing his evening of murder and rape, Alphon was very careful to mention that he fired one shot only. This was a deliberate mistake, not the only one he dropped in. I've said all along that Alphon was a weirdo, but a canny weirdo for all that, and he made sure he pushed his totally fictitious story for all it was worth. He was nowhere near the car that night.

                          Graham

                          He was in the car. I totally believe it was Alphon who committed this crime.

                          He was recognised by a woman who saw him in the area (doing a bit of reconnaisance?) a while before the crime. He made a comment about her dog. I think she was the witness who described him as "a bit like Sidney Taffler" (the actor). And Alphon does resemble the actor.

                          He definitely was a weirdo.

                          And he couldn't drive.
                          This is simply my opinion

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by NickB View Post
                            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's difficult to understand why a piece of material would have been so carefully treated way back then, when DNA testing had not been heard of.

                            I thought I remembered hearing that exhibits (from both sides) were all stored in the same box in those days.
                            This is simply my opinion

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by louisa View Post
                              It's difficult to understand why a piece of material would have been so carefully treated way back then, when DNA testing had not been heard of.

                              I thought I remembered hearing that exhibits (from both sides) were all stored in the same box in those days.
                              Your quite right Louisa
                              I'm very sceptical that a little piece of material would have been cut out from that garment in that way back in '
                              61 I thought I had read that a piece as described above had been cut from the exhibit in the late 90s ,used for centrifugal processing ,in readiness for DNA testing. Leaving nothing for a defence copycat test. (Very clever I might add)

                              Comment


                              • It's difficult to understand why a piece of material would have been so carefully treated way back then, when DNA testing had not been heard of
                                To determine the blood-group of any individual whose body-fluid was on the piece of material.

                                Graham
                                We are suffering from a plethora of surmise, conjecture and hypothesis. - Sherlock Holmes, The Adventure Of Silver Blaze

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X