a6 murder

[Steve]

Evening Graham

Miss Storie does have internet access but I very much doubt that she looks at this thread. She is the type of person who gets on with life and determinedly doesn’t dwell in the past. I think doing so this evening and during tonight will be hard for her.

Kind regards,
Steve

[Graham]

If Hanratty had 'bought' an alibi, it wasn't money very well spent. He mentioned a man called McNally, who admitted that he did know JH, but who refused to say much more, doubtless for obvious reasons. Joe Gillbanks, the PI employed by Sherrard, tried hard to locate the flat where JH claimed to have spent the night of August 22nd, but drew a blank.

I believe JH mentioned another name in connection with his Liverpool alibi claim (sorry, I can't remember that name) but no-one of this name was ever located either by Gillbanks or any subsequent investigation. The Liverpool 'alibi' just falls apart, hence JH ditching it in mid-trial and moving on to Rhyl.

Cheers,

Graham.

[Graham]

Evening Graham

Miss Storie does have internet access but I very much doubt that she looks at this thread. She is the type of person who gets on with life and determinedly doesn’t dwell in the past. I think doing so this evening and during tonight will be hard for her.

Kind regards,
Steve

You can bet on that, Steve. It's impossible to appreciate how she must feel at this time.

Cheers,

Graham

[Steve]

The Liverpool 'alibi' just falls apart, hence JH ditching it in mid-trial and moving on to Rhyl.

Cheers,

Graham.

Which also fell apart ....

[Steve]

You can bet on that, Steve. It's impossible to appreciate how she must feel at this time.

Cheers,

Graham

I know she has many good friends who will be rallying around her. I would guess Ann Binks will be one of them supporting her tonight.

[Graham]

Which also fell apart ....

It did...big time.

Graham

[Steve]

I wonder if he had another spurious alibi up his sleeve?

[Graham]

I wonder if he had another spurious alibi up his sleeve?

Hi Steve,

Who knows? I can't recall the legal gobbley-de-gook to describe changing an alibi half way through a trial, but I believe the Hanratty Trial was instrumental in getting the law changed - i.e., you cannot change your alibi once you have made your statement to the effect "it wasn't me, guv, I was elsewhere at the time".

Seems to me that JH made the big mistake of providing too much information at his trial (and before it). I still find it rather astonishing that Sherrard allowed him to take the stand, when he did himself far more harm than good, never mind what Woffinden says about his performance.

Cheers,

Graham

[Limehouse]

Correct, Steve, and well said. And also spare a thought for the two Gregsten sons, whose lives have been sadly blighted.

I'd almost forgotten, to be honest, as today is also the anniversary of the Battle of Bosworth Field, and Richard III is another of my interests.

Cheers,

Graham.

Thank you, Steve and Graham for drawing our attention to the anniversary of the event and to the feelings of those are still dealing with its effects. I often think about the Gregsten boys and how publicity about the case must keep reminding them of what happened to their father.

[johnl]

Dna Evidence

This is my first and, possibly last, post to this thread. I read every single post to this, and the previously lost, thread on this subject and make the following point:-

reg 1965

You do not seem to understand the significance of para's 124,125 & 126 of the appeal court documents

Para 124 states the possibility of contamination of the samples and takes this into account for paras 125 &126.

To illustrate the meaning of paras 125 & 126 it is best to use an analogy:-

Take a freshly laundered white bed sheet and draw an outline of a figure of any size or shape on the sheet and hang it up. Throw a bucket of dye (representing any contaminant representing the broken phial of of JH's DNA from the washing of his trousers) at the sheet.
What are the chances of the fluid thrown exactly matching the outline of the figure you have drawn?
Virtually nil.
That is the nub of the appeal court judgement and that is why the legal team representing the Hanrattys did not refute these findings and why Paul Foot walked away scratching his head.
JH was guilty, full stop.
Conspiracy is quite another matter!

Graham
Do you think Richard III murdered the princes in the tower?

[reg1965]

This is my first and, possibly last, post to this thread. I read every single post to this, and the previously lost, thread on this subject and make the following point:-

reg 1965

You do not seem to understand the significance of para's 124,125 & 126 of the appeal court documents

Para 124 states the possibility of contamination of the samples and takes this into account for paras 125 &126.

To illustrate the meaning of paras 125 & 126 it is best to use an analogy:-

Take a freshly laundered white bed sheet and draw an outline of a figure of any size or shape on the sheet and hang it up. Throw a bucket of dye (representing any contaminant representing the broken phial of of JH's DNA from the washing of his trousers) at the sheet.
What are the chances of the fluid thrown exactly matching the outline of the figure you have drawn?
Virtually nil.
That is the nub of the appeal court judgement and that is why the legal team representing the Hanrattys did not refute these findings and why Paul Foot walked away scratching his head.
JH was guilty, full stop.
Conspiracy is quite another matter!

Graham
Do you think Richard III murdered the princes in the tower?

Johnl
Re, I assume my postings #'s 1515 and 1517?
I think that it is you who doesn't understand the significance of paragraphs 124-126.
What has a bed sheet (and to give you any benefit of any doubt, we'll say it's a small single) got in common with a pair of ladies knickers. Surely not size, especially looking at the slim Valerie Storie, so that reduces the surface area considerably and therefore increases the chances of hitting a certain area or shape. Any way if the vial of trouser wash was broken in the same container as Valerie Stories knickers how does this equte with your interesting experimental analogy.
The court of appeal dismissed every single point (in a most off hand way) put by the appellants and accepted, without question the DNA profiling evidence, even though a doubt was even expressed (para. 124). In other cases where DNA profiling has been used to gain a conviction solely based on the DNA findings, some have been quashed due to contamination. (I will post example in due time) These are recent cases where so called correct DNA handling has been observed (not like in 1961).
DNA profiling is just a technique and like all forensic techniques is only as correct as the application of a human testing strategy when using them. In computing it is called 'rubbish in, rubbish out'!
I think that there is enough of a reasonable doubt (including the DNA and all the other previously recorded evidence (hearing, trial and both appeals)) to say that the conviction is unsafe.
Dont run away johnl, please come back and state your supporting evidence for Hanratty's guilt. I, for one, would be most interested to hear your views.

Kind regards
Reg1965

Ps The princes in the tower were murdered by Col Mustard with the rope. Am I right?

[reg1965]

Reg

Do you think perhaps that Hanratty was at first trying to build a plausible alibi from previous experiences in Liverpool? Perhaps when that was proving to be a hopeless cause he changed his alibi to Rhyl and again incorporated previous experience into his story?

Kind regards,
Steve

Steve
Another excellent point! But no I don't, and this is why.
Hanratty had travelled to Liverpool and Rhyl at the time of the murder and it was to dispose of, at least, a watch. He was also fairly transient in his day to day existence, probably living off of the last job and planning the next. Remember he was still housebreaking and fencing gear pretty much up until his arrest and one job would have become just like all the others pretty much.
When finding out of his being wanted in connection with the A6, he must have been quite incredulous and thought that it would all soon be sorted out and he would be eliminated from the polices inquiry. Hanratty must have thought that no one would remember him in Rhyl so initially plumped for a story about fences, as we know he did. He kept this up, naively, until the first week of the trial. Suddenly all sorts of people, the best of whom Mrs Walker and Mr Larman came forward to support the alibi, terms of date, hair condition and NO LUGGAGE! . Neither Mrs Walkers nor Mr Larmans statement were ever shown to the defence! (Woffinden 1997. pps 281-283)
Cheers
Reg

[johnl]

Dna Evidence

reg1965
Again you don't get it.
We have a semen stain in the case of the knickers and a snot stain in respect of the handkerchief. The area of the stain in both cases was taken into account. The SIZE of the stain is irrelevant. In para 124 the judges took into account that there was the possibility of contamination before they moved on to para 125 & 126.GOT IT?
After the tests were conducted the area of the DNA from JH coincided with the area of the stain from semen/snot and there were no other DNA deposits on either material sample that would have incriminated anybody else.
As I said in my last post, if this had been in any way subject to argument it would have been exposed by the the legal/forensic team of the Hanrattys and any other interested parties.
The crux of the matter is that the Appeal Court Judges accepted, in advance per para 124 that contamination was possible and para 125 & 126 reflected this.
Do you think that you have seen inconsitencies in the judgement that the Hanratty legal team have missed?????

[reg1965]

reg1965
Again you don't get it.
We have a semen stain in the case of the knickers and a snot stain in respect of the handkerchief. The area of the stain in both cases was taken into account. The SIZE of the stain is irrelevant. In para 124 the judges took into account that there was the possibility of contamination before they moved on to para 125 & 126.GOT IT?
After the tests were conducted the area of the DNA from JH coincided with the area of the stain from semen/snot and there were no other DNA deposits on either material sample that would have incriminated anybody else.
As I said in my last post, if this had been in any way subject to argument it would have been exposed by the the legal/forensic team of the Hanrattys and any other interested parties.
The crux of the matter is that the Appeal Court Judges accepted, in advance per para 124 that contamination was possible and para 125 & 126 reflected this.
Do you think that you have seen inconsitencies in the judgement that the Hanratty legal team have missed?????

Dear johnl
Yes I do, especially concerning the DNA (which you seem to think is the be all and end all of this argument!)
The hankerchief for one.
Mansfield must have been sure that the gun was planted on the bus by another person, the real killer or an acomplice, then he has missed a simple trick!
The appeal judges said (para. 126) that the notion of contamination ocurring twice (both garments) was 'fanciful'. So why did Mansfield follow this line of the knickers and the hanky. I would have not disputed that the hanky was Hanratty's and just concentrated on the knicker DNA evidence. This would have made a larger dent in the respondents case regarding solely the DNA.
Please though give us other evidence which points at Hanratty. DNA alone to satisfy a criminal indictment is a very dangerous course to follow if justice is to be upheld!
Plus I do GET IT! In your first post you said outline and above you say area. Probably just a typo by you right?
Reg

[reg1965]

As I said in my last post, if this had been in any way subject to argument it would have been exposed by the the legal/forensic team of the Hanrattys and any other interested parties.

It was exposed from expert witness testimony from Dr Evison. All of the respondents witnesses concurred that contamination was not unlikely and therefore that it should not be ruled out.

Also be mindful that the document we have been discussing is not a transcript of the appeal hearing itself but the appeal courts ruling. The two are most definitely not the same!

This is where I think you are going wrong.

Lots of love
Reg
xxxxxxxxxxxxxx