a6 murder

[JamesDean]

As far as I am concerned the DNA evidence has been fully dealt with and put to bed.

The operative words being "As far as I am concerned". There are a number of differing views on this subject and from my perspective it has not yet been put to bed. Contamination, deliberate or otherwise, is still regarded as a possibility however remote. I am referring specifically to the fragment of knicker and not to the handkerchief. I have said on numerous occasions that the handkerchief belonged to JH but I do not accept that its presence on the bus is definite proof of a link between the murder weapon and JH. I do not find it easy to believe that JH would leave his handkerchief along with the murder weapon; it's too convenient. Yes, to answer a point you made in an earlier post, criminals do leave 'calling cards' and that's why they get caught. JH was no doubt well aware of that fact so why leave his calling card on the bus. I ask that as a purely rhetorical question because nobody can provide an explanation save to suggest that Hanratty was careless or stupid or both. It has been suggested that the hanky was left simply to stop the loose bullets rattling. It's a plausible explanation but I think the bottom of the Thames or almost anywhere but the back seat of a bus would have been a better place to dispose of such vital evidence; which leads me to believe that JH was not the person who placed the article on the bus, that it was put there in full expectation of being found; the same goes for the cartridges in room 24 of the Vienna.

[Steve]

Door Locks

The Morris Minor would probably have been parked in the cornfield with unlocked doors. Crimes like the A6 murder were not at the forefront of people’s thoughts and society was generally more trusting in those days. Cars did not have central locking, each door had to be locked individually. The back doors would have been locked from the inside, and the front passenger door locked by the driver when the passenger got out and the driver’s door locked with a key on exit.

It’s likely that the back doors of Gregsten’s Morris Minor were locked when the gunman approached the car, but only because there were only two occupants and the back doors didn’t need to be open.

[Steve]

Why the gun was dumped on a bus has always been a mystery of this case. Hanratty was not Brain of Britain, that’s for sure, but even would have known the gun would have been found sooner or later under the back seat of a London bus. If Hanratty did leave it there he must have panicked and not thought through the consequences. That would have been typical of Hanratty. However, it’s very possible that Hanratty asked his friend Dixie to get rid of the gun and Dixie left it where it would be found and handed over to the police. If that was the case we do not know for sure what was Dixie’s motive, but it is certain that his attitude towards Hanratty changed at about the time of the A6 murder.

[jimarilyn]

Hi P.L.A.

Good to see you back on this thread posting. I hope you're well. I remember that in your first post you mentioned a relatively minor error contained in Bob Woffinden's book to the effect that it was James Hanratty senior whose second name was Francis, not his son. Although I regard Woffinden's book very highly he has allowed a few errors to creep in, one of which is very misleading. Lately I've been doing some reasearch on the Ancestry.co.uk website and discovered the following errors, three of which are minor :

p12 : Janet Gregsten was born in 1930 not 1931.

p12 : Valerie Wickenden (Janet's half-sister) was not married to William Alfred Ewer in 1943. They didn't marry until the last few months of 1948, 5 full years later.

p41 : Audrey Willis was 25 years old not 23 years old.

p53 : Mrs Meike Dalal's husband's name was Zarir not Zahir.


Maybe I'm nit-picking. Incidentally, speaking about William Alfred Ewer he was born 11th December 1911 and passed away in March 1990. His wife Valerie was born 20th October 1925 and passed away as recently as February 2005.

[johnl]

James Dean

james Dean
I accept that you believe the scenario of the gun and handekerchief on the bus and to a certain extent I am sympathetic to it.
"Contamination, deliberate or otherwise, is still regarded as a possibility, however remote"
Both sides in the appeal agreed that contamination was a possibility. On this basis, when the forensic tests were carried out there was a PRESUMPTION of contamination. That is to say, all things being equal, if JH"s DNA was found on the knickers it would be presumed to be a contaminant and JH would therefore be innocent i.e he was being given the benefit of any doubt regarding contamination. However, the circumstances of the distribution of the DNA proved beyond doubt that JH had indulged in sexual intercourse with VS.
As for the FSS falsifying the data, they had no axe to grind, they weren't bringing in to disrepute work previously done by their colleagues, additionally a piece of the crotch of the knickers was made available to JH's legal/forensic team.
The point I am trying to make is that contamination was taken into account in the judgement so it is not logical to bring it up now.
I've just had a feeling of deja-vu !
I Apologise for rattling on about this but I cannot let this error go unchallenged.
I trust this is the end of the matter.

All the best
johnl

[jimarilyn]

[B]
I Apologise for rattling on about this but I cannot let this error go unchallenged.
I trust this is the end of the matter.

Methinks Johnl that you're secretly revelling in all this DNA stuff. May I take it that you are a fully qualified forensic scientist specialising in DNA profiling ?

[johnl]

Methinks Johnl that you're secretly revelling in all this DNA stuff. May I take it that you are a fully qualified forensic scientist specialising in DNA profiling ?

No I'm just logical with the ability to disseminate information!
As for the science- Victor's your man on that front!
My last post wasn't about DNA, it was about the law and logic.

regards johnl

[Steve]

in your first post you mentioned a relatively minor error contained in Bob Woffinden's book to the effect that it was James Hanratty senior whose second name was Francis, not his son. Although I regard Woffinden's book very highly he has allowed a few errors to creep in, one of which is very misleading. Lately I've been doing some reasearch on the Ancestry.co.uk website and discovered the following errors, three of which are minor :

p12 : Janet Gregsten was born in 1930 not 1931.

p12 : Valerie Wickenden (Janet's half-sister) was not married to William Alfred Ewer in 1943. They didn't marry until the last few months of 1948, 5 full years later.

p41 : Audrey Willis was 25 years old not 23 years old.

p53 : Mrs Meike Dalal's husband's name was Zarir not Zahir.


Maybe I'm nit-picking. Incidentally, speaking about William Alfred Ewer he was born 11th December 1911 and passed away in March 1990. His wife Valerie was born 20th October 1925 and passed away as recently as February 2005.

There are a lot of errors in Woffinden’s book. But then there is a lot more background information than in any of the other publications. It has to be remembered that Woffinden’s book was written as a result of his own television documentary about the A6 murder, and much of the detailed information will have been provided not by Woffinden himself, but by the researchers who worked on the making of the television programme.

[jimarilyn]

There are a lot of errors in Woffinden’s book. But then there is a lot more background information than in any of the other publications. It has to be remembered that Woffinden’s book was written as a result of his own television documentary about the A6 murder, and much of the detailed information will have been provided not by Woffinden himself, but by the researchers who worked on the making of the television programme.

My thoughts exactly. Well put.

[Victor]

The operative words being "As far as I am concerned". There are a number of differing views on this subject and from my perspective it has not yet been put to bed.

True, but you could also add "As far as the law of this country is concerned". I have yet to hear a coherent, plausible argument for why the DNA evidence should not be accepted. I view the alibi evidence as seperate entirely from the scientific evidence and in my mind it is very questionable.

Contamination, deliberate or otherwise, is still regarded as a possibility however remote.

Again, true but valid counter-arguments for the contamination theory have been supplied and have not been sufficiently explained away. And as I said previously, "deliberate" contamination is a conspiracy theory and although possible, it's impossible to logically argue for or against without corroberative evidence.

I am referring specifically to the fragment of knicker and not to the handkerchief. I have said on numerous occasions that the handkerchief belonged to JH but I do not accept that its presence on the bus is definite proof of a link between the murder weapon and JH.

I disagree, it's presence on the bus IS proof of a link between JH and the murder weapon, in as much that they were found together and someone left them together - the prosecution argued that this proves that JH left them there - of course it does not, but the defence has to then offer a plausible explanation as to why they WERE found together.

I do not find it easy to believe that JH would leave his handkerchief along with the murder weapon; it's too convenient. Yes, to answer a point you made in an earlier post, criminals do leave 'calling cards' and that's why they get caught. JH was no doubt well aware of that fact so why leave his calling card on the bus. I ask that as a purely rhetorical question because nobody can provide an explanation save to suggest that Hanratty was careless or stupid or both. It has been suggested that the hanky was left simply to stop the loose bullets rattling. It's a plausible explanation but I think the bottom of the Thames or almost anywhere but the back seat of a bus would have been a better place to dispose of such vital evidence; which leads me to believe that JH was not the person who placed the article on the bus, that it was put there in full expectation of being found; the same goes for the cartridges in room 24 of the Vienna.

An interesting hypothesis, but it is not sufficient to discount stupidity on the grounds that it is stupid. You have to find some (any) evidence to support that hypothesis and I'm listening...

Of course when you bring in the JH statement about the back seat of a bus being a good place to dispose of items, then that indicates a further link. The counter-argument that this provides some evidence that someone who heard that statement could use it to plant the gun has to then deal with the "plant-er" has to also get hold of JH's hanky.

[jimarilyn]

Of course when you bring in the JH statement about the back seat of a bus being a good place to dispose of items, then that indicates a further link.

JH could easily have denied that he had made such a statement to Charles France. Instead it was his basic truthfulness which led him to confirm France's story. Under the back seat of a bus was a good place to dispose of worthless paste not a murder weapon and 5 boxes of ammo ! If he had been the murderer Hanratty would have just denied making such a potentially damaging statement.

[johnl]

Paul Foot

Victor
The problem is that you are dealing with people who have allowed themselves to be brainwashed by Paul Foot and treat his book like a fundamentalist christian would treat the bible.
I have just looked back at his article quoted on post 1493 and it is full of the sort of disinformation which his disciples lap up !

All the best
johnl

[Victor]

JH could easily have denied that he had made such a statement to Charles France. Instead it was his basic truthfulness which led him to confirm France's story. Under the back seat of a bus was a good place to dispose of worthless paste not a murder weapon and 5 boxes of ammo ! If he had been the murderer Hanratty would have just denied making such a potentially damaging statement.

But that's reverse logic! And maybe JH was basically honest or too stupid to think of a plausible lie.

John - I agree entirely. Big up Foot and Wolffinden, diss Mathers OR read all three and see where they agree!

[P.L.A]

Minor Errors

It would be interesting to know Woffinden's source. Maybe he made mistakes in his note taking.

How do we know which is correct?

Peter

[jimarilyn]

It's patently obvious to me that the gun, ammo and handkerchief were planted underneath the bus seat to incriminate Hanratty. Otherwise why not just throw the gun and ammo in the Thames. Why wrap the bullets in such an incriminating piece of material as a mucus stained handkerchief ? Whoever planted the gun, ammo and hankie under that seat wanted them to be found, which they duly were the day after the murder. Mission accomplished.