a6 murder

[johnl]

Reg1965

I apologise if I have been aggressive and sarcastic, I merely carried on in a similar vein to the way my first post was responded to by Reg

johnl

[jimarilyn]

Mrs Meike Dalal

Hi,

One of the many puzzling aspects of this extremely enigmatic case concerns the attack on Mrs Meike Dalal just two weeks after the murder.
Mrs Dalal lived in a large house on Upper Richmond Road West, an area which it very much would seem was very familiar to Peter Alphon. Her very violent attacker ( it couldn't have been Hanratty as he was in Ireland ) claimed to be the A6 murderer. In all he struck three blows to her head. Her wrists were tied with some flex ( Valerie Storie's wrists were also tied by her rapist/attacker ), her mouth was gagged and her ankles were bound.
Mrs Dalal had a very clear (and much longer) view of her attacker. She attended an identification parade on September 23rd, was afraid to tap any of the men on the shoulder but then collapsed behind the screen naming Peter Alphon as her attacker/attempted rapist.
Mrs Dalal's positive identification led to Alphon being charged with assault and grievous bodily harm. He was detained in custody but when the case was presented at Mortlake Magistrates court just over a week later he was for some unfathomable reason found not guilty and awarded 50 guineas.

My point is, how come Valerie Storie's identification of her attacker (whom she says she only saw for a few seconds in dim light at night) was accepted so readily (after a previous mistaken identification of Michael Clark) while Mrs Dalal's identification of her attacker (whom she saw quite clearly in daylight hours for a good few minutes in her own home) was rejected. Something, my dear Watson, is afoot here (and not twelve inches nor Paul).

[Dupplin Muir]

LCN and PCR

Just to point out that LCN and PCR are basically different terms for the same technique. LCN simply means that there is little DNA present. PCR is the process used to multiply the LCN DNA to the point where comparisons can be made.

Personally I find it rather suspicious that only three sets of DNA were found on the underwear. Given that DNA testing was unknown in 1962 I find it very unlikely that no-one else's DNA would have found its way onto the knickers - either epithelial cells where they were handled, or DNA in saliva/sputum. Consider the Jon-Benet Ramsey case where some of the DNA is generally agreed to come from the factory where the child's clothes were made, or the Falconio investigation, where (iirc) the DNA of the Chief of Police was found on Joanne Lees's clothes (at a time when the possibilities of contamination were well-known).

DM

[Victor]

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.

OK Reg, but from the arguments you put forward and are continuing to put forward that didn't appear to be the case.

Please also see the following article:-

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...lly-sound.html

Precisely my point, that article confirms it, it isn't the science that is the problem, it's the interpretation of the results!

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

Wrong! They didn't mix the two, they didn't seperate them out - it's called a racemic mix (roughly equal proportions of the left and right handed mixed together) and it's incredibly difficult (and time-consuming and EXPENSIVE) to either seperate them or only make one of the two. And that quote above is a naive blamestorming of scientists.

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!!!!????!

Well, as I don't agree with you, then the foundation of the above quote falls apart.

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!

Hardly a waste - that's the entire point of research - finding things that don't work as well as things that do. In this way other disasterous calamities involving drugs are minimised by stopping them from being widely used.

And no point trying to cast the above statement as somehow unsympathetic to those that have suffered - that is definitely not the case - it was very regrettable that a lot of people suffered and are still suffering as a result of a bunch of stupid accountants, who made a similar mistake to yourself Reg - not fully understanding the science.

[jimarilyn]

However, in reality he lacked a particular insight into the impact of his crimes on others. He felt it was alright to rob from people who lived in big houses because they would probably be insured. He could not understand that some of the items he stole were irreplaceable to the owners of the house.

Hi Limehouse,

You're absolutely correct. James Hanratty, in common with thousands upon thousands of housebreakers, gave little thought about the houses he burgled and the emotional impact these burglaries must have had on the householders. In fact the following excerpt from the trial transcript is very revealing and insightful :

Q. I am right in saying that you have been a professional housebreaker since you were sixteen ?

A. That is quite correct.

Q. Breaking regularly into other people's houses, which you describe as your business ?

A. That is quite correct.

Q. Taking their goods with no conscience and no regrets ?

A. Yes, I agree.

Q. Is that right ?

A. Yes.

Q. Selling them for what you can get to your clients ?

A. That is correct, yes.

Q. No regard, of course, to the sentimental value of anything which you took ?

A. No

Q. No feelings towards the house owners who had come back and found their premises broken into and their goods missing ?

A. Sir, I must put this point quite clear. I ain't a man the court approved of as of good character, but I am not a murderer. This is a murder trial, not a housebreaking trial.

[Limehouse]

Hi Jimarilyn,

That exchange of discourse between Hanratty and his cross-examiner highlights what I have always maintained about Hanratty - he was no 'mental defective' - he was relatively articulate, verbally fluent and confident.

Your other post about the way Alphon was able to avoid being convicted for the attack on Mrs Meike Dalal is also a very interesting point which i remember reading about in Woffiden's book. There was also another attack on a lady in Hertfordshire as I remember. The attacker wore a coat exactly like one worn by Alphon and he also fitted the description of Alphon. It is strange indeed that he has been able to avoid conviction for crimes when there has been compelling evidence against him. It does throw the whole Hanratty case into confusion.

[Limehouse]

Just to point out that LCN and PCR are basically different terms for the same technique. LCN simply means that there is little DNA present. PCR is the process used to multiply the LCN DNA to the point where comparisons can be made.

Personally I find it rather suspicious that only three sets of DNA were found on the underwear. Given that DNA testing was unknown in 1962 I find it very unlikely that no-one else's DNA would have found its way onto the knickers - either epithelial cells where they were handled, or DNA in saliva/sputum. Consider the Jon-Benet Ramsey case where some of the DNA is generally agreed to come from the factory where the child's clothes were made, or the Falconio investigation, where (iirc) the DNA of the Chief of Police was found on Joanne Lees's clothes (at a time when the possibilities of contamination were well-known).

DM

Welcome Dupplin,

You seem to be an expert witness! I've no doubt your points will contribute considerably to this debate. A number of us a very sceptical about the value (and integrity) of the DNA evidence in this case.

[Victor]

Personally I find it rather suspicious that only three sets of DNA were found on the underwear. Given that DNA testing was unknown in 1962 I find it very unlikely that no-one else's DNA would have found its way onto the knickers - either epithelial cells where they were handled, or DNA in saliva/sputum. Consider the Jon-Benet Ramsey case where some of the DNA is generally agreed to come from the factory where the child's clothes were made, or the Falconio investigation, where (iirc) the DNA of the Chief of Police was found on Joanne Lees's clothes (at a time when the possibilities of contamination were well-known).

DM

I suppose it all depends upon how they were handled - when did evidence start being put in plastic bags? How quickly do the various forms (semen/vaginal fluids/epithelial cells/nasal fluids/saliva/sputum) decay?

That's a very inciteful, intelligent and relevant question.

[reg1965]

I apologise if I have been aggressive and sarcastic, .....
johnl

johnl
apology accepted

[johnl]

The bag

One thing I haven't seen mentioned on this thread is the bag.
Whose was it; what did it contain and where did it end up?
If it was there when JH arrived isn't it more likely that it would have been in the back seat or the boot?
It's described as a duffel bag so maybe it sounds quite large and bulky and a bit big for the footwell of a moggie with somebody sitting in the front seat, or was it moved there when JH got in the back?

Cheers
johnl

[reg1965]

Hi all
Here is an (albeit a very poorly marked up) article by Prof Jamieson, a defence expert witness in the Omagh Bombing trial.

http://www.freepressreleases.co.uk/Press_Releases/Legal_and_Law/LCN_DNA_2008041516946/

Another in PDF concerning the use of LCN (or LT) DNA from a barrister in NZ with regard to Omagh and other cases.

https://www.geocities.com/veneziophile/Lcndna.pdf

and finally a lengthy pdf by Dr Krane about his eveidence in the Omagh case appeal. (In the references section)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low_copy_number

Reg

[reg1965]

One thing I haven't seen mentioned on this thread is the bag.
Whose was it; what did it contain and where did it end up?
If it was there when JH arrived isn't it more likely that it would have been in the back seat or the boot?
It's described as a duffel bag so maybe it sounds quite large and bulky and a bit big for the footwell of a moggie with somebody sitting in the front seat, or was it moved there when JH got in the back?

Cheers
johnl

John
in Foot (1988. p31) and again in Woffinden (1997. pg 8) and in Miller (2001. pg105) the duffle gag contained 'laundry' (my quotes).
in Woffiden (same as above) the killer took 'a pair of pyjama trousers'. So possibly the laundry was Mike's.
Reg

[Steve]

The bag contained the Gregsten family laundry which Mike had collected earlier in the day.

[Steve]

Hi,

One of the many puzzling aspects of this extremely enigmatic case concerns the attack on Mrs Meike Dalal just two weeks after the murder.
Mrs Dalal lived in a large house on Upper Richmond Road West, an area which it very much would seem was very familiar to Peter Alphon. Her very violent attacker ( it couldn't have been Hanratty as he was in Ireland ) claimed to be the A6 murderer. In all he struck three blows to her head. Her wrists were tied with some flex ( Valerie Storie's wrists were also tied by her rapist/attacker ), her mouth was gagged and her ankles were bound.
Mrs Dalal had a very clear (and much longer) view of her attacker. She attended an identification parade on September 23rd, was afraid to tap any of the men on the shoulder but then collapsed behind the screen naming Peter Alphon as her attacker/attempted rapist.
Mrs Dalal's positive identification led to Alphon being charged with assault and grievous bodily harm. He was detained in custody but when the case was presented at Mortlake Magistrates court just over a week later he was for some unfathomable reason found not guilty and awarded 50 guineas.

My point is, how come Valerie Storie's identification of her attacker (whom she says she only saw for a few seconds in dim light at night) was accepted so readily (after a previous mistaken identification of Michael Clark) while Mrs Dalal's identification of her attacker (whom she saw quite clearly in daylight hours for a good few minutes in her own home) was rejected. Something, my dear Watson, is afoot here (and not twelve inches nor Paul).

People in the vicinity thought Mrs Dalal was calling out ‘Essex Murderer!’

Yes, Alphon knew the area, but he wandered around all of London. He had nothing better to do. It’s more likely these two attacks were totally unrelated to the A6 murder. At that time several people came forward claiming to be the gunman, and it’s quite probable that criminals tried to divert suspicion away from themselves and towards the A6 murderer.

[paul.barton]

In researching my family history I made contact with a distant relative, a young man who was having great difficulty in getting the co-operation of family members and couldn't understand why it was so difficult to get answers.

Last Sunday I googled the somewhat unusual family name and landed on this site. I was astonished to discover that he is the grandson of Carole France, the daughter of Dixie France. He doesn't know this yet but I've left a message to get back in touch.

He has not had contact with his grandparents since he was a baby. I found his grandfather last year (who married Carole France shortly after Hanratty's trial) and put the two of them in touch for the first time. As far as I am aware none of this story came up in conversation.