Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Mail's feature of 1999 on Hanratty by Roger Matthews

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

  • Originally posted by caz View Post
    ...Can you explain how you know the judgement was wrong to state that smaller quantities of AB seminal fluid were present when the knickers were first examined?...
    Because I've seen copies of Lewis Nickolls bench notes and read his entire testimony at the trial. No AB semen found on any of the exhibits...full stop. The judges are either lying or were just not paying attention.

    Originally posted by caz View Post
    ...Also, I would have thought it impossible that Miss Storie would not have read the judgement herself. She of course would be the person to know when she had last had sex with Gregsten and therefore to confirm or deny that his seminal fluid could have been present and DNA from it rightly attributed to him...I trust you are not implying she would have held back any personal knowledge that would have undermined the findings or the judgement...
    See:


    Also, Gregsten was an only child and his mother, Jeannie May was 68 in 1961 so she is unlikely to be alive today. And, they both may have been cremated.

    Del

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Victor View Post
      ...That's the "saucer-eyes" saga or "blue-brown" bungle, and I don't buy it myself. It's the word of one witness against another; John Kerr vs Valerie. And Kerr is only working on heresay, he's telling Valerie that in her agony and confusion she distinctly told him the attacker had brown eyes. And he's the only person who got told that?...
      Kerr said nothing of the sort. He said that Valerie told him he had light fairish hair, was about her height (5' 3 & 3/4") and had large eyes.

      Valerie told DS Rees at Bedford Hospital the man had brown eyes. See the Hawser report for confirmation of this. Hawser dismissed this because Valerie never signed the statement! Yet the police used this description way beyond the first 48, so to speak.

      Del

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Derrick View Post
        Because I've seen copies of Lewis Nickolls bench notes and read his entire testimony at the trial. No AB semen found on any of the exhibits...full stop. The judges are either lying or were just not paying attention.
        Seems Hanratty's defence team were 'just not paying attention' either then, or surely they would have pounced on any such potentially significant 'lie' or mistake with undisguised relish - some dozen years ago.

        Instead we get today's defenders (present company excepted, Del) still gamely soldiering on with the less than credible Rhyl witnesses or general comments about potential contamination and/or corruption on the part of the authorities.

        They need specifics, such as you are trying to provide, or sadly they will continue to get nowhere fast.

        Also, Gregsten was an only child and his mother, Jeannie May was 68 in 1961 so she is unlikely to be alive today. And, they both may have been cremated.
        That could explain why the attribution was not confirmed, but I still think Miss Storie would have said something if they were alleging she had had unprotected sex with Gregsten and she knew otherwise. She knew what the judgement stated, even if it was wrong, so she would have been aware that two different men's semen was said to have been found on her underwear. If Gregsten's could not have been deposited there and she knew it, don't you think - as a woman - she'd have had some serious questions to ask about the evidence?

        It's all very well for others to suggest she may have allowed herself to believe it was the 'right result' when it wasn't, but she'd have known it was iffy if only one man's semen should have been present, which would make her deliberately dishonest for not speaking out. It would not have proved Hanratty innocent and destroyed Miss Storie's credibility in any case, since his DNA was present. At worst it would have rendered the DNA evidence unsafe, given the indication of a second unidentified male profile.

        Love,

        Caz
        X
        "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


        Comment


        • Originally posted by Derrick View Post
          Kerr said nothing of the sort. He said that Valerie told him he had light fairish hair, was about her height (5' 3 & 3/4") and had large eyes.

          Valerie told DS Rees at Bedford Hospital the man had brown eyes. See the Hawser report for confirmation of this. Hawser dismissed this because Valerie never signed the statement! Yet the police used this description way beyond the first 48, so to speak.

          Del
          Has Miss Storie herself confirmed that she told Rees the man had brown eyes? What state was she in when this alleged discrepancy first came to light? Was she asked to make sense of it?

          I seem to recall a (police?) spokesman making a right mucking fuddle of it when asked about the man's eyes, saying first one thing then hastily correcting it. But then the police would have been infallible when taking down or quoting from the statement of a very seriously injured witness, wouldn't they?

          Love,

          Caz
          X
          "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


          Comment


          • Originally posted by caz View Post
            ...That could explain why the attribution was not confirmed, but I still think Miss Storie would have said something if they were alleging she had had unprotected sex with Gregsten and she knew otherwise. She knew what the judgement stated, even if it was wrong, so she would have been aware that two different men's semen was said to have been found on her underwear. If Gregsten's could not have been deposited there and she knew it, don't you think - as a woman - she'd have had some serious questions to ask about the evidence?
            It seems Miss Storie was just being used to sure up the prosecutions case by way of a statement withheld by the Crown in the first place. Umm, nasty tactics there.

            Unless anyone knows else, she has said nothing at all about the case since a documentary shown just after the 2002 appeal.

            If anyone has a copy of that I would be interested to see it...I believe it is called Hanratty, The Whole Truth. Please PM me if you have it.

            Originally posted by caz View Post
            It would not have proved Hanratty innocent and destroyed Miss Storie's credibility in any case, since his DNA was present. At worst it would have rendered the DNA evidence unsafe, given the indication of a second unidentified male profile...
            Really? That's interesting you should say that.

            How could one possibly interpret a mixed profile from a LCN test when mixed profile interpretation under LCN hasn't and never will be validated? I'm not going over your head here am I Caz? Given your previous admissions of not knowing anything at all about the science viz the Harriman book, which I suggest you read.

            But, as you say, it could never prove Hanratty's innocence, as such, but it would mean that his conviction would be quashed and then the presumption of innocence is then regained by the appellant! Good old Magna Carta as Rumpole would say, no doubt.

            And everyone here, I'm sure, would agree that a retrial is unlikely!

            Del

            Comment


            • Originally posted by caz View Post
              Has Miss Storie herself confirmed that she told Rees the man had brown eyes? What state was she in when this alleged discrepancy first came to light? Was she asked to make sense of it?
              What discrepancy?

              At the committal on 22nd November 1961, Dr Andrew Pollen, consultant orthopaedic surgeon at Bedford hospital said, in answer to questions from Mr Sherrard, that he asked her questions and she understood, giving remarkably clear answers. When he asked her about the rape she mentioned a gun; she was compos mentis during their conversation. The police later took a statement from her and she was quite capable of making that statement.

              Originally posted by caz View Post
              I seem to recall a (police?) spokesman making a right mucking fuddle of it when asked about the man's eyes, saying first one thing then hastily correcting it. But then the police would have been infallible when taking down or quoting from the statement of a very seriously injured witness, wouldn't they?
              That would be Inspector Robert Morgan of Biggleswade division. The mucking fuddle you allude to is about the set of the man's eye's not the colour. In actual fact Valerie's description to DS Rees was of "brown eyes, not very deep set". But that's coppers for you.

              HTH
              Del

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Derrick View Post
                Unless anyone knows else, she has said nothing at all about the case since a documentary shown just after the 2002 appeal.
                If anyone has a copy of that I would be interested to see it...I believe it is called Hanratty, The Whole Truth. Please PM me if you have it.
                I think the programme was made for Channel 4 by Blakeway Productions.

                At the time of the Appeal, Valerie Storie gave an interview to the Mail on Sunday which appeared in the 5th and 12th May 2002 issues. Apparently the interview was conducted at her home with 2 senior Scotland Yard officers present and she donated the fee to charity.

                Then there was her statement after the Appeal.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by NickB View Post
                  I think the programme was made for Channel 4 by Blakeway Productions.

                  At the time of the Appeal, Valerie Storie gave an interview to the Mail on Sunday which appeared in the 5th and 12th May 2002 issues. Apparently the interview was conducted at her home with 2 senior Scotland Yard officers present and she donated the fee to charity.

                  Then there was her statement after the Appeal.
                  Cheers for those links Nick

                  ATB
                  Del

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Derrick View Post
                    What discrepancy?

                    At the committal on 22nd November 1961, Dr Andrew Pollen, consultant orthopaedic surgeon at Bedford hospital said, in answer to questions from Mr Sherrard, that he asked her questions and she understood, giving remarkably clear answers. When he asked her about the rape she mentioned a gun; she was compos mentis during their conversation. The police later took a statement from her and she was quite capable of making that statement.

                    That would be Inspector Robert Morgan of Biggleswade division. The mucking fuddle you allude to is about the set of the man's eye's not the colour. In actual fact Valerie's description to DS Rees was of "brown eyes, not very deep set". But that's coppers for you.

                    HTH
                    Del
                    Hi Derrick,

                    Again, was Miss Storie ever asked by the defence to confirm that she had described brown eyes to DS Rees, or asked about the discrepancy after she picked out Hanratty?

                    I'm sorry but I can't recall how Hanratty's defence dealt with the issue, apart from unsuccessfully.

                    Clearly Miss Storie herself has remained adamant that she was able to identify Hanratty as her attacker once he was included in the line-up. I appreciate she picked out an innocent man first time round, but the pressure would have been huge not to let herself or the police down by failing to pick anyone out. And she could hardly have been expected to pick out her attacker on that occasion if he wasn't even there.

                    Love,

                    Caz
                    X
                    "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


                    Comment


                    • Regarding the DNA evidence, I have to confess it is a bit over my head. Reading the 2002 judgement I can't get away from the fact that Hanratty's DNA was picked up and positively identified from the knicker fragment, along with Miss Storie's, in a pattern alleged to be consistent with sexual intercourse.

                      Both prosecution and defence seemed to accept Hanratty's DNA was indeed present, the only possibly innocent explanation being put forward as a potential contamination incident - not that the identifications/attributions themselves were in error or suspect.

                      If what you say is correct, it is beyond me why you are still here and not spending all your time and effort making your DNA concerns crystal clear to those who are qualified, able and willing to take them further and help get Hanratty's conviction quashed.

                      I'm afraid I can do bugger all about it.

                      Love,

                      Caz
                      X
                      "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X