a6 murder

[Victor]

DNA Evidence

Reg,

Here's a better analogy of the DNA evidence:-

Imagine that DNA is hundreds and thousands aka sprinkles or whatever.

Imagine that each person has a different colour.

Imagine that the knickers is a cake that has a mixture of 3 colours:- the rapist, VS and MG.

Now Hanratty has a different colour.

Now what has to happen for the DNA evidence to be contaminated is for the Hanratty sprinkles to drop onto cake and knock off all the rapist ones - every single one of them - but leave behind the VS and MG ones and the new Hanratty ones.

Think you can do that?

For the hanky you've got it a bit easier - this "cake" starts out with only the rapists colour, and what you have to do is drop Hanratty's on to it and dislodge all of the rapist colour, and leave behind only Hanratty's.

Now Thalidomide is an enantiomeric compound - it has a left-handed and right-handed version. One version works, the other causes the deformities. In the trials they used the version that works, but when they came to make it for general use the FINANCE men came along and said - making this pure version is really difficult and expensive, but we can easily make a mixture of the two - and that's what was used and caused all the problems. It's an accountants mistake!

[Limehouse]

Concerning your first question Tony, I do think it strange that she appears not to have wanted to draw attention to the car at several stages during the journey. I like to think that I would have allowed him to stop on a private road in the hope that it would draw attention. However, under the circumstances, who knows how one would behave? I was once caught up in an armed robbery at a store where I was working on temporary management cover. In training, we were always told what to do in the case of such a robbery - don't argue, don't try to be a hero - just comply. I imagined that if such an event happened - I would find it difficult to just give in meekly. As it happened, faced with a great shotgun and a very aggressive bunch of hooded men, my colleagues and I dropped to the floor as we were ordered to do and stayed there until long after they had gone. One or two of us actually wet ourselves, I am not ashamed to say. When questioned by the police, I could not recall whether the robbers who spoke to us had any sort of accent. I couldn't recall how tall they were, what build they were or anything much at all. Perhpas that also answers your second question.

However, Valerie was with her attacker for much longer than I was with those robbers. Not only that, she actually had him on top of her, just a few inches away. When she was laying injured in the layby, she actually tried to sketch her attacker in the dirt on the ground and as soon as she was approached by the young student she gave him a description of the attacker. She was certainly determined to identify her attacker. If Hanratty had been in the first line up, would she have picked him out?

[Tony]

Identification issue.

Hello Limehouse,

I think of all the contributors to the forum you are best placed to answer several queries I have.
They relate to Miss Storie’s evidence and powers of observation as an identification witness.

First of all let us not forget that virtually everyone in ‘the Hanratty did it camp’ say the jury was most impressed by Miss Storie’s evidence and that was the main reason for the guilty verdict.

Given in evidence:

“After we passed Silsoe, he (the man in the car) saw a turning off to the left. He appeared to be looking out of the car on the left-hand side and he saw this turning. He said to Mike, ‘Turn down there’ and we turned down this little lane. I saw a post with a notice on which it said ‘Private, no parking’ I said to the man, ‘We cannot stop here. This is a private road and we shall only draw attention to ourselves’. So he agreed we should turn round and continue northwards on the A6. A little while after he saw another little turning off to the left and he said, ‘Go down there’. After 50 or 100 yards down this little turning there were some houses. Mike stopped by the houses and I again said, ‘we cannot stop here, someone will see us’. And so for the second time he agreed we should turn round and continue going north.

Now here’s the thing Limehouse: you are in a car with a gunman, you are scared but intelligent wouldn’t you want to be discovered? Wouldn’t you want someone to alert the police to this car parked on a private road? Why did she not want anyone to see them?

On Miss Storie’s own admission she saw the gunman’s face but for a few seconds at night by the light of a passing car.
On the Alphon parade she picked out Michael Clark as the gunman. I assume she was certain he was at the time.
She looked at the men in perfect lighting conditions for five minutes or more. It must have been an ordeal. I would have thought Michael Clark’s face would have been very frightening to her and would become etched in her memory. None of us, I think, has ever seen Michael Clark.

Given in evidence:

Q: You identified a man as being, in your view, the assailant?
A: Yes.
Q: Can you tell us now what that man looked like?
A: No.

Would you have remembered a small detail of Michael Clark, Limehouse?


Tony.

[Tony]

Duplication.

Sorry don't know how that happened.

Tony.

[johnl]

DNA evidence

Tony
Excellent! Your analogy of the DNA is much better than mine and when taking into account that there was a presumption of contamination by JH's DNA it makes the evidence watertight.
Spot on with the thalidomide too! It is still being used to this day.

johnl

[johnl]

DNA evidence

Victor
Sorry that last post should have been to you!

johnl

[reg1965]

Hello jimarilyn
So you are very impressed with Reg1965's knowledge, understanding and insight of the case.
As an example let's take a look at his post 1542 and "THE BEST" of all the Rhyl witnesses, Mrs. Walker and Mr. Larman "who came forward to support the alibi, terms of date, hair condition and NO LUGGAGE!"
They both made statements to the police and the defence to the effect that they had seen Hanratty in Rhyl between 7.30 and 8.00 on 22 August, and particularly noticed his hair, which was bronze or black and Mr. Larman states the sun was shining on it and he could not see the colour properly but it was most outstanding.
This evidence was never introduced at the first appeal for one very good reason; to quote his solicitor "He could not have spoken to any of these people at 7.30 pm because his evidence on oath was that he did not leave Lverpool by coach for Rhyl until after 7.30 pm and that when he arrived in Rhyl it was late evening and dark" this was apart from other inconsistencies and mutually contradictory features.
So these were "THE BEST" Rhyl witnesses.
Very impressive!

johnl
I am sure that jimarylin is very impressed with your posts too! I don't know for sure but hey that's my tragic flaw for getting things wrong.
Talking of getting thinks wrong, you misquoted my post #1542 it actually read "...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)". and not ""THE BEST" of all the Rhyl witnesses" as you have pretended that I did.
The only statements that could have been considered for the appeal were those of Mrs Walker, Mrs Vincent and Messrs Larman and Da Costa (the actor who saw Hanratty at Euston station on the Tuesday morning).
As to timing Mrs Walker said it was ABOUT 7:30 and later added in another interview with the defence investigator 'because it was getting dark and the street lamps were lit. Mrs Walker was just estimating the time but later claified it. It was not dark at 7:30 as both Messrs Kleinmann and Swanwick admitted (which was sometime after 8:30pm). (Foot 1988. pps 236-248). So therefore why not call them!
As to Hanratty swearing on oath that he left Liverpool after 7:30 the trial transcript reads "This would be about half past seven. It might not be the exact time." Therefore it could be both before or after then!
And later when Mr Swanwick challenged Hanratty that he had said it was dark when arriving at Rhyl replied "No, I did not say that."! and would not be bullied by Mr Swanwick about the journey time "...because I did not time it." (all in Foot 1988. p246).
There may be inconsistences and mutually contradictory features in ALL of the Rhyl witness statement but not as many as in the prosecutions.
Reg1965

[reg1965]

Reg,

Here's a better analogy of the DNA evidence:-

Imagine that DNA is hundreds and thousands aka sprinkles or whatever.

Imagine that each person has a different colour.

Imagine that the knickers is a cake that has a mixture of 3 colours:- the rapist, VS and MG.

Now Hanratty has a different colour.

Now what has to happen for the DNA evidence to be contaminated is for the Hanratty sprinkles to drop onto cake and knock off all the rapist ones - every single one of them - but leave behind the VS and MG ones and the new Hanratty ones.

Think you can do that?

For the hanky you've got it a bit easier - this "cake" starts out with only the rapists colour, and what you have to do is drop Hanratty's on to it and dislodge all of the rapist colour, and leave behind only Hanratty's.

Now Thalidomide is an enantiomeric compound - it has a left-handed and right-handed version. One version works, the other causes the deformities. In the trials they used the version that works, but when they came to make it for general use the FINANCE men came along and said - making this pure version is really difficult and expensive, but we can easily make a mixture of the two - and that's what was used and caused all the problems. It's an accountants mistake!

Thank you Victor
But I don't need another over simplified analogy of the DNA evidence. I can read the real thing for myself in the appeal court ruling document.
Please also see the following article:-

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-558811/DNA-technique-sparked-controversy-Omagh-bombing-trial-scientifically-sound.html

Thank you though for supporting my views on Thalidomide (my post #1547). But it was not the accountants who mixed the two surely...that must have been some sort of scientist(s)! Who then, knowingly, blighted many of peoples existence on this earth.

Reg1965

Ps johnl and his post #1580
You contradicted yourself again via Thalidomide. In post #1554 you said that "I didn't know what I was talking about" with regard to it but in the above you, via Victor, agree with me!!!!????
I agree though that Thalidomide is in fact being used today, in the study and treatment of erythema nodosum leprosum. No need to put all those reasearch dollars to waste then!

[johnl]

Reg 1965
So it' s back to the gospel according to St. Paul of Foot!
The sentence on post 1542 was preceded by "He kept this up (The liverpool alibi)(my italics) until the first week of the trial". You then go on to "suddenly etc." The implication of this is that he changed his alibi to Rhyl and all these people came forward (including those at the guest house) and the best of these were Mrs. Walker and aand Mr. Larman. QED
" Neither Mrs. Walker's nor Mr. Larman's statement was ever shown to the defence"- Under the practice pertaining at that time they didn't have to; they merely had to supply their names and addresses. In the case of Mrs. walker they certainly did (pp190-191) whether they did in the case of Mr. Larman is in dispute although I can't see why they would do one and not the other. In any event they were both available in time for the first appeal.
Mr. Larman
In the case of the police statement he said approximately 7.15 and that he would not be able to recognise the man. In the case of the statement it had changed to approximately 7.30 and he WOULD be able to recognise the man.
By Hanratty saying that he could possibly have have left later than 7.30, if these statements were to be introduced, it would look even worse for him!!!
Are you incapable of assimilating information!
As for the DNA evidence you could obviously read the appeal court ruling but you certainly couldn't understand it (as witnessed by our previous posts!).
As for thalidomide, I wondered why such a prolific poster to this site ( 42 posts in ten days) had suddenly gone quiet, you were obviously reading up on thalidomide!!! Although how you can think Victor is supporting you beggars belief!

[johnl]

DNA evidence

reg1965
The link you put on your reply to Victor is about LCN (low copy number) DNA
testing whereas the forensic scientists involved in the appeal used PCR (polymerase chain reaction) testing.
You're not very good at this are you?

[Tony]

Recent posts.

Gentlemen,

I hope I am not overstepping the mark but can we cool it please?

This is a discussion forum and up to now everyone has been respectful to each other even when having totally opposite views. Don’t let’s have a slanging match it adds nothing to this marvellous debate.

With respect to everyone,

Tony.

[reg1965]

Gentlemen,

I hope I am not overstepping the mark but can we cool it please?

This is a discussion forum and up to now everyone has been respectful to each other even when having totally opposite views. Don’t let’s have a slanging match it adds nothing to this marvellous debate.

With respect to everyone,

Tony.

Dear Tony
Thank you. I am sure it had to be said.

And to all the posters on this forum thread.

I was just in the middle of composing a post to deal with this very subject and have found myself in the position were I should not in future reply in any way shape or form to the posts of the following:

johnl

I feel that although this is not in the spirit of free speach (where I or they have made valid and legitimate points) but feel that the above mentioned is out of order in respect of misinterpreting my posted views at every turn, including their last two, which prompted Tony to intervene.

I have been studying the A6 murder for a long time and had thought that I had found a great forum for discussing openly and without personal attack the pro's and con's of the case.
I have tried to post accurately referenced material but have found recently that johnl is incapable of posting in an honest fashion and has resorted to twisting my words or using nothing short of ad hominim. I am not at all happy about this!

Therefore I leave it to you other posters to decide what should happen.

Until then

Best wishes
reg1965

[jimarilyn]

Hi,

Speaking only for myself I would just like to say that most of Johnl's posts have been unnecessarily sarcastic and aggressive in tone. Perhaps he can curb this tendency in future posts. As Tony rightly points out no one desires slanging matches on the thread.

[timsta]

Thank you Victor

Thank you though for supporting my views on Thalidomide (my post #1547). But it was not the accountants who mixed the two surely...that must have been some sort of scientist(s)! Who then, knowingly, blighted many of peoples existence on this earth.

Reg1965

The above is incorrect. S- and L-enantiomers of thalidomide are freely converted into each other by the human body.

Timsta

[Tony]

Dear Tony
Thank you. I am sure it had to be said.

And to all the posters on this forum thread.

I was just in the middle of composing a post to deal with this very subject and have found myself in the position were I should not in future reply in any way shape or form to the posts of the following:

johnl

I feel that although this is not in the spirit of free speach (where I or they have made valid and legitimate points) but feel that the above mentioned is out of order in respect of misinterpreting my posted views at every turn, including their last two, which prompted Tony to intervene.

I have been studying the A6 murder for a long time and had thought that I had found a great forum for discussing openly and without personal attack the pro's and con's of the case.
I have tried to post accurately referenced material but have found recently that johnl is incapable of posting in an honest fashion and has resorted to twisting my words or using nothing short of ad hominim. I am not at all happy about this!

Therefore I leave it to you other posters to decide what should happen.

Until then

Best wishes
reg1965

Good Morning Reg,

Can I just say this to you, my friend?
And indeed to everyone that uses this forum.

When somebody, anybody really, is so interested in a subject such as this they usually go to a lot of trouble and to great lengths to try to find more and new information. I for instance have just bought Justice’s book on the case for £30 which cost 9F francs when first published.
There are obviously two camps: ‘He’s guilty; He’s not guilty’
I am personally in the ‘Not Guilty’ camp.
I have been very passionate about this case since 1971 although I do remember the murder.
When I go out with my mates on Thursday nights I can guarantee that during the course of the night one of them will say: “Is Hanratty still innocent then, Tony?”
But it’s said in fun and I would never get aggressive about it. They respect my belief and I respect theirs and that’s how it should be here.
You don’t want to sit down composing a post feeling apprehensive or uncomfortable about the replies you might get. I just think the word here is respect. I don’t agree with lots of posts on here and I don’t like the way some of them are phrased but until this last couple of weeks I have observed nothing but respect from all contributors to each other. I hope we can keep it that way.

As for your good self, Reg, I perceive that you are extremely knowledgeable about the case and I for one would definitely not like to see you leave. There’s no way we can ever satisfactorily resolve the DNA, which seems to be the root of the arguments, because I for one do not understand it and I am sure most of us don’t. I am 100% prepared to accept the DNA findings as they stand but am suspicious of how it occurred or was obtained. There are still too many coincidences for my liking.

Once again stick with us, one and all, but it is at the end of the day a discussion about a subject we all enjoy and we don’t personally know one another so let’s imagine that each one of us is the nicest person around and be courteous to each other.
And it’s all free.

All the best to everyone.

Tony.