a6 murder

[Steve]

Steve
Another excellent point! But no I don't, and this is why.
Neither Mrs Walkers nor Mr Larmans statement were ever shown to the defence! (Woffinden 1997. pps 281-283)
Cheers
Reg

Hello Reg

The defence team chose not present the new evidence at Hanratty's appeal. Their reasoning was because they believed that this evidence would not stand cross-examination.

KR
Steve

[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?

johnl old darling you have entered a condradiction here!
First you say that the chances of hitting the target (outline) were virtually nil. Now you seem to be saying that the size of the target (stain) is irrelevant!
Did the goalposts suddenly move!
How do you intend to make a thesis of an argument from those two statements? Are you going to have just blind faith in the science of DNA?
Please think back to 2 very bad uses of science which left many thousands of people in a state of severe debilitation namely DTT and Thalidomide. Both of these were not used for the public good but for profit.

Scientists get things wrong.

Love always
Reg xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

[reg1965]

Hello Reg

The defence team chose not present the new evidence at Hanratty's appeal. Their reasoning was because they believed that this evidence would not stand cross-examination.

KR
Steve

Steve
....I have made a previous comment on the judgement and competence of the defence before. It does not impress me too much. I am not saying that Sherrard was not doing what he thought right but just that he was not quite up to the job! He being a young and ambitious barrister but young and inexperienced all the same. The solicitors were not very good either!
Reg

[Graham]

Hello Reg

The defence team chose not present the new evidence at Hanratty's appeal. Their reasoning was because they believed that this evidence would not stand cross-examination.

KR
Steve

Hi Steve,

Correct. As I said in a previous post, if Hanratty had accurately described at least one of the Rhyl people who described him, then matters may well have been very different. Or had he signed the book at Ingledene as Ryan, Hanratty, or whatever, and told his defence or the police the name he used, that I think would have constituted a definite, inarguable link with Rhyl at the critical period. But he didn't, because he couldn't.

He did describe people on the train, but none of these people ever came forward or were ever traced; chances are he had trawled his memory and was describing people he may have seen on trains at other times.

Along the same lines (no pun intended) I spent the entire day at home today, my wife was out, I didn't speak to a single neighbour or anyone else, never made or received a single phone-call, didn't write an e-mail or use the computer until now, wasn't seen by anyone as far as I know, and it occurred to me that it would be damn near impossible for me to prove where I was today. (As it happens, I was friggin' decorating, before you think what a sad life this Graham bloke must have).

Cheers,

Graham

[reg1965]

Hi Steve,
Correct. As I said in a previous post, if Hanratty had accurately described at least one of the Rhyl people who described him, then matters may well have been very different. Or had he signed the book at Ingledene as Ryan, Hanratty, or whatever, and told his defence or the police the name he used, that I think would have constituted a definite, inarguable link with Rhyl at the critical period. But he didn't, because he couldn't.

Graham
In theory it was not up to Hanratty to provide anybody to support his alibi. It should be up to the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he was where the prosecution says he was.
Reg

[Graham]

Steve
....I have made a previous comment on the judgement and competence of the defence before. It does not impress me too much. I am not saying that Sherrard was not doing what he thought right but just that he was not quite up to the job! He being a young and ambitious barrister but young and inexperienced all the same. The solicitors were not very good either!
Reg

Reg,

This is a valid argument. I think Hanratty's defence made a number of mistakes (not the least being to allow him to give evidence). They were also not assisted by Acott's dirty tricks in not passing evidence to the defence, as the police are required to do. Neither were they helped by Hanratty's "remembering" of things as the trial progressed.

I'm reminded of the trial of Tony Mancini (one of the 2 Brighton Trunk Murderers) who was defended by the great Norman Birkett. Mancini was guilty as hell (he confessed years later) but Birkett's defence was understated yet brilliant - a true virtuoso performance. And yes, he did let Mancini give evidence himself, but Mancini and Hanratty were chalk and cheese. Mancini had been coached thoroughly by Birkett (who was no mean actor) and did precisely what he was told to do. Result - acquittal.

Cheers,

Graham

[Graham]

Graham
In theory it was not up to Hanratty to provide anybody to support his alibi. It should be up to the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he was where the prosecution says he was.
Reg

They did.

Graham

[johnl]

Dna Evidence

[B]reg1965
You seem to be a bit flustered. Get your posts 1544,1545 & 1547 in to some kind of order and I will reply.
I am not your "old darling" so don't patronise me.

[johnl]

Thalidomide

reg1965
I have just noticed that you don't know what you are taking about re thalidomide so if you want to discuss that bring it on!!

[johnl]

Dna Evidence

reg1965

I will make another attempt to put this DNA matter to rest.
In their judgement the judges did not say "This is our judgement but bear in mind there could be contamination of the DNA evidence" what thay said was "We are fully aware of the possibility of contamination of the original samples and have made our judgement after having taken this in to account"
The forensic scientists did not baldly say that James Hanratty's DNA was on the knickers and the handkerchief, what they said was that after taking in to account the possibility of contamination of the original samples:-
a/ in the case of the handkerchief, at some point in time JH blew his nose on it
b/ in the case of the knickers, at some point in time JH had sexual intercourse with somebody who wore the knickers and, in the light of the other DNA evidence that person was VS.
Read it! It's all there!
This is why the judgement is watertight and why nobody from the legal or science communities has come forward to challenge it and why Paul Foot walked away scratching his head !
I hope you understand it now.

[reg1965]

To Johnl
I don't think you have much of a sense of humour do you?
It is up to you to tell me where I am going wrong with Thalidomide, not for me to provide large transcripts until I finally make a mistake and viola I was wrong all along!
My posts were in the order that I dealt with your points. Stop stalling and deal with them then, in any order that YOU like, it doesn't bother ME.
Please give paragraph references from the Ruling where your final points were raised so I can easily respond to them!
Kind regards old fruit
Reg

[reg1965]

....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

Another interesting point arising from the witness testimony of Mrs Walker and Mr Larman was the condition of Hanratty's hair. If it was in an unnatural streaky condition then Valerie Storie and the other ID witnesses original descriptions are all incorrect anyway. Back to Alphon then! He should be served a subpoena for a sample of his DNA.

Reg

[johnl]

DNA evidence

As for the DNA evidence being the be-all and end-all, the judges thought so-see p127 of their judgement.
The judges did not think that both garments being contaminated was fanciful, they state that the cicumstances of the contamination in both cases were fanciful, see below:-
The forensic scientist approached the analysis of both pieces of cloth from the viewpoint that the DNA from JH was, in fact, a contaminant
The handkerchief
If the DNA from JH was a contaminant why was his the only DNA found on the cloth and also restricted EXACTLY to the area of a mucus stain on the cloth and nowhere else (hence my analogy) ?
The knickers
If the DNA from JH was a contaminant then the DNA of the real rapist had degenerated to such an extent that it was undetectable whilst that of MG and VS had remained-highly improbable. Another possibility is that the contaminant had completely obliterated the DNA of the rapist whilst leaving the DNA of MG and VS intact; even if this is possible the position of the contaminant was consistent not with it having been spilled on the garment but with sexual intercourse having taken place between JH and VS.
Presumably you know what a semen stain is and why, how and where they occur, I'm not going to spell it out for you.
This is what the judges found fanciful!
It was accepted by the appellants that the contaminant was from semen.
Yes I do have a sense of humour loss when I feel I am banging my head against a brick wall!

[reg1965]

Johnl
Re: my post #1544.
I said that I did not dispute the hankerchief having JH's DNA on it.
I accept your point about 'fanciful' being to mean in either case. But this is just the judges interpretation and should be taken as such.
I do not accept though the judges view (para 126) that 'The idea that it might have happened twice over is beyond belief', as the earlier paragraph (115) contradicts this.
Reg

[johnl]

DNA evidence

reg 1965
The judges are not saying that the possibility of contamination of both pieces of evidence is beyond belief, they are saying that the possibility of the rapists DNA degenerating so as not to be detectable and/or the possibility of JH's DNA obliterating the rapists DNA on both pieces of evidence is beyond belief.
Hence p115 does not contradict!