A6 Rebooted

[OneRound]

Originally Posted by Spitfire

OR,

You are right. This is what Mr Sweeney QC for the Crown said when addressing the Court of Appeal on 22 April 2002.




I’ve taken the above from Rob Harriman’s book where he gives most of the transcript for the DNA aspect of the appeal.

I am not sure where the “two days” has come from mentioned by Sweeney.

I have had a quick reread of the transcript and Mansfield QC does not seem to make anything of this. But part of the problem in understanding this aspect of the case is that the various expert witnesses have given reports upon which they have been examined and cross examined, and while the questions asked find their way into the transcript, the reports about which they are being asked do not.

It seems therefore that AB group stains were discovered in 1961 and VS would have been asked about these at the time. The Crown and defence at the time were agreed that the seminal stains from the O secretor were those of the rapist/murderer. The AB stains must therefore have been those left by MG.

Hi again Spitfire,

For a moment there, I thought you had the whole transcript of the 2002 appeal. Ah well!

As often, I follow your reasoning to the bottom line. I just cannot shake the feeling that for such an important aspect of the Hanratty case, an agreement or presumption of this sort is unnecessarily casual. I would like there to be as much medical proof as feasible and consider that only reasonable.

As a bit of an aside, I take your point totally about the problems in fully understanding all aspects of a case without the whole transcript and the related expert reports.

I've recently read the Court of Appeal judgement for the Cameo murders case. In their 2003 judgement, the Court of Appeal allowed the posthumous appeals made upon behalf of George Kelly and Charles Connolly and absolutely tore into the police and prosecution witnesses from the original 1950 trials. In setting out the reasons for their findings, the Court highlighted the lies that had been told and the evidence that had been deliberately suppressed. Just going from that judgement, it would seem that no case could now be made against Kelly and Connolly. However, I found it interesting that the Court in their judgement referred (without commenting on the validity) to the Crown QC's view that a retrial would have been sought had Kelly and Connolly still been alive and the appeal held at a much earlier time. Either the Crown's QC was being particularly ungracious to the memories of the two dead men or there was more against them than was (or needed to be) stated in the Court's judgement.

Best regards,

OneRound

[OneRound]

Originally Posted by moste

Whilst I believe the presumption would have been verified, the potential significance was and remains huge. If these stains do not tally with Gregsten, that would be strong evidence of another man or, at the least, contamination and the whole of the DNA case against Hanratty would collapse like a house of cards in a cyclone.

HI OR. Quite well put.

Do you not think though, that if the presumption was verified in the negative, we would not have got to know about it anyway?

Thank you, Moste. However, your thinking there goes too far for me. I do not see an establishment conspiracy or cover up. My issues are principally with Acott's non-disclosures and the Court of Appeal's reluctance to give or even explore possible benefits of doubt in favour of Hanratty.

Best regards,

OneRound

[OneRound]

Originally Posted by Alfie

Hi OneRound, Spitfire etc

I was less interested in debating the vagaries of DNA testing than I was in discussing the likelihood of Valerie and Gregsten having sex in the Morrie on the evening of the 22nd, and perhaps being caught in flagrante delicto by Hanratty.

Is there a female poster who'd judge it likely that the knickers Valerie was wearing on Tuesday evening were the same ones that she'd donned on Sunday morning, and hadn't washed in the meantime?

Hi Alfie - if you're not so keen on us making apple pie, don't put so many apples on our doorstep!

Best regards,

OneRound

[Alfie]

Originally Posted by OneRound

Hi Alfie - if you're not so keen on us making apple pie, don't put so many apples on our doorstep!

Best regards,

OneRound

Hi OneRound

I don't know what you found on your doorstep, but they weren't my apples. I never mentioned DNA in my original post.

So, back to Valerie's knickers ...

[cobalt]

One possibility might be that the AB sample belonged to Gregsten and had survived the underwear being washed.
In 1961 not all households had a washing machine, so that either meant a copper boiler (highly efficient as I vaguely recall) or handwashing in a sink, followed by a wringer. The trace would not be visible to the naked eye but could have shown up under analysis.

[Alfie]

Originally Posted by cobalt

One possibility might be that the AB sample belonged to Gregsten and had survived the underwear being washed.
In 1961 not all households had a washing machine, so that either meant a copper boiler (highly efficient as I vaguely recall) or handwashing in a sink, followed by a wringer. The trace would not be visible to the naked eye but could have shown up under analysis.

I hadn't thought of that, but I suppose it is a possibility, even if a faint one.

I think what's more likely, though, is that Valerie and Gregsten had intercourse in the car that evening and this fact was concealed by Acott - for the sake of propriety and to keep Valerie in the good graces of the Bedford jury.

[OneRound]

Originally Posted by Alfie

Hi OneRound

I don't know what you found on your doorstep, but they weren't my apples. I never mentioned DNA in my original post.

So, back to Valerie's knickers ...

Hi Alfie - in my crime and cook books, the knicker staining leads to discussion of the DNA finding even more than an abundance of apples leads to making of apple pie.

Best regards,

OneRound

[OneRound]

Originally Posted by Alfie

I hadn't thought of that, but I suppose it is a possibility, even if a faint one.

I think what's more likely, though, is that Valerie and Gregsten had intercourse in the car that evening and this fact was concealed by Acott - for the sake of propriety and to keep Valerie in the good graces of the Bedford jury.

Hi again Alfie - what they were up to in the car before being disturbed would almost certainly be regarded as irrelevant today. However, if concealment did occur as you speculate to influence the jury of the time, that gives rise to concern.

Best regards,

OneRound

[ansonman]

Originally Posted by OneRound

Hi again Alfie - what they were up to in the car before being disturbed would almost certainly be regarded as irrelevant today. However, if concealment did occur as you speculate to influence the jury of the time, that gives rise to concern.

Best regards,

OneRound

I find it hard to believe that they drove into the cornfield for any reason other than to have intercourse. It is hardly surprising that this was concealed, given the fact that their relationship was concealed. If the jury were not made aware of the relationship they were not going to be made aware that they had sex on the night of the attack. Would the jury members be so naïve as to believe that they drove into the cornfield after visiting the pub, in order to further their discussions without being disturbed? Quite possibly. Having said that, their motivation for being in the cornfield was surely irrelevant to the jury at the time.

Ansonman

[Graham]

I believe that Valerie in her first interview said that she and Gregsten had 'picked up a hitch-hiker near Slough', which was in turn picked up by the press in early reports of the A6 Crime. This I am sure was an attempt on her part for both propriety, and to try to hide the fact that she was in an affair with a married man. Then, when she changed that to the pair of them being in the car in the cornfield to plan a motor rally, it was left at that, again for the sake of propriety, but I doubt there was a person in the courtroom - or in the land, for that matter - who wasn't aware of the true reason for their being in the cornfield.

Graham