a6 murder

[johnl]

Tony

Hello Jimarilyn.


I also have a lot of trouble with the gun under the seat. If I was Hanratty and had ‘done the crime’ I can’t see myself driving around for hours afterwards with the gun and a load of boxes of ammo and then walking about in public with all this stuff and then think: “Oh I know my trusty hiding place will do under the back seat of the bus. After all the bus gets cleaned every night and the cleaner removes all my unwanted jewellery I’ve checked before. He might be good enough to throw the lot in the river and save me the bother. Can’t imagine him handing it over to the police”.

Now I know some stupid people, and no I’m not looking in the mirror johnl, but I don’t know anybody that stupid.
He might as well have left it on the cop shop doorstep with his name and address on it.

Tony

I have no problem with your opinions Tony as you don't present them as dogma as handed down by the blessed St. Paul of Foot!
Just don't mention you know what !!!

All the best
johnl

[JamesDean]

james Dean

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.

Yes contamination was taken into account in the judgement. I have read the judgement and I understand that the appeals panel came to the conclusion that, in their opinion, contamination was unlikely. The logic that was used to reach that conclusion was, in my opinion, flawed because it was looking at the possibility and likelihood of contamination to both the fragment and the handkerchief. As you know I believe that the handkerchief was belonging to James Hanratty so there is no question of that article being subjected to any form of contamination. It was his handkerchief and it, quite rightly, contained traces of his DNA in the mucus deposited on the handkerchief. Contamination of the fragment is another matter. All parties agreed that contamination was a possibility but the judgement looked at the likelihood of 'both' the fragment and the handkerchief being contaminated by JH's DNA in exactly the same way. In the words of the appeals panel ... "The idea that it might have happened twice over is beyond belief". If both articles had been contaminated in the same way then it would be beyond belief but the fact remains that the handkerchief was not contaminated by any other process than James Hanratty blowing his nose on it. If the appeals panel had only considered the possibility of contamination of the fragment then perhaps they would have had to concede that the DNA was not conclusive proof of guilt.

Please do not keep saying this is the end of the matter. You have merely taken the judgement as written and agreed with the opinion of the judges. Remember that the judges formed an opinion and that is all the judgement is ... an opinion.

I respect your opinion but I am still open to the possibility that this issue is not as cut and dried as you make out.

Regards

[Tony]

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.

Hello Steve,

You’re not going to like this but we have only one person’s testimony about the car. Do we know for sure the two occupants were sat in the front seat planning a car rally or were they perhaps in the back seats otherwise engaged?

Tony.

[caz]

Hi JamesDean,

What would your possible explanation be for Hanratty's DNA accidentally contaminating the gusset fragment of a rape victim in such a way that the victim and her boyfriend's DNA was still identifiable but the real rapist's DNA had to all intents and purposes disappeared?

I don't really see how that could have happened either by freakish accident or hellishly clever design.

Love,

Caz
X

[JamesDean]

I just cannot see the scientists and the establishment conspiring together and the former having the expertise or opportunity to stage manage not only the presence of an innocent Hanratty's DNA-on- gusset-in-perfect-intercourse-pattern, but also the total absence of any trace of the real rapist's DNA-on-rape victim's gusset, before supplying a piece of this miracle cake to the opposition to check out.

I think some people are trying to have their cake and eat it here. They have to decide whether the scientists involved were incompetent to judge what they were seeing here, or so far in advance of the field that they could walk on water if the establishment required them to.

Hi Caz,

The possibility of some form of tampering with the evidence to achieve a positive result is something which can never be discounted even if you think it is unlikely. It's too easy to just accept the judgement as fact.

We should also remember that the fragment of knicker was very small and even more so in the 2002 test as a portion of the original fragment was used in the 1995 inconclusive test. That no other male DNA othe than JH and MG was found on the fragment does not convince me. Other male DNA could possibly have been found on another part of the garment if it had not been destroyed. As it was, the rest of the garment was never tested.

Regards

[JamesDean]

Hi JamesDean,

What would your possible explanation be for Hanratty's DNA accidentally contaminating the gusset fragment of a rape victim in such a way that the victim and her boyfriend's DNA was still identifiable but the real rapist's DNA had to all intents and purposes disappeared?

I don't really see how that could have happened either by freakish accident or hellishly clever design.

Love,

Caz
X

Hi Caz,

I mentioned in my last post the size of the fragment that was available for testing. It may not be representative of the complete garment. We can never know if there was any other DNA on some other part of the garment.

Love

James
x

[johnl]

DNA evidence

James Dean

Hello again!
You're like a little terrier aren't you? I honestly have a high regard for your tenacity!
You have taken the mix of facts and introduced your "belief" and "opinion" in to the mix and come up with the answer you were looking for. If that suits your purpose and reinforces your prejudice then OK !
Without being disrespectful, I don't believe you are open to the possibility that this issue is not as cut and dried as I (and the legal and forensic) believe.You've swallowed it hook, line and sinker!

All the best
johnl

[JamesDean]

You’re not going to like this but we have only one person’s testimony about the car. Do we know for sure the two occupants were sat in the front seat planning a car rally or were they perhaps in the back seats otherwise engaged?

Tony.

Hi Tony,

Ha ha! That's what I always assumed was happening at the time the gunman tapped on the window. Why sit in a quiet cornfield to plan a car rally?

Regards

[JamesDean]

James Dean

Hello again!
You're like a little terrier aren't you? I honestly have a high regard for your tenacity!
You have taken the mix of facts and introduced your "belief" and "opinion" in to the mix and come up with the answer you were looking for. If that suits your purpose and reinforces your prejudice then OK !
Without being disrespectful, I don't believe you are open to the possibility that this issue is not as cut and dried as I (and the legal and forensic) believe.You've swallowed it hook, line and sinker!

All the best
johnl

Hi johnl

Maybe I'm simply playing devil's advocate!

Regards

[johnl]

DNA evidence

Hi Caz,

I mentioned in my last post the size of the fragment that was available for testing. It may not be representative of the complete garment. We can never know if there was any other DNA on some other part of the garment.

Love

James
x

This matter was dealt with in paragraph two of my post 1612 as amended by my post 1613

Regards johnl

[Tony]

Hi Tony,

Ha ha! That's what I always assumed was happening at the time the gunman tapped on the window. Why sit in a quiet cornfield to plan a car rally?

Regards

Hello James Dean,

I know Steve and Graham won’t approve of me bringing this up but have you read the Jean Justice book on the case? He tells a story told to him by Alphon that only the gunman and Valerie could have known. Obviously by this time Hanratty was dead so it was no use to him and I doubt whether the allegation has ever been put to VS. It does seem to me that at the time it was taboo to discuss people’s morals in public but was perfectly acceptable within the same case to discuss whether a man should live or die.

Tony.

[johnl]

DNA evidence

Hi johnl

Maybe I'm simply playing devil's advocate!

Regards

If you are you're not making a bad job of it, you little terrier!

Regards
johnl

[caz]

Hi again James,

I would never discount the possibility of tampering. It’s more that I can’t see how tampering could have achieved this particular result, especially if JH’s legal team got their own snippet of gusset cloth to check against verified DNA profiles for JG, VS and JH.

I could see your point about the rest of the garment if JG’s DNA had not been identifiable on the remaining fragment. The most obvious explanation is that this fragment was retained because it was from the gusset, where physical evidence of rape (or previous lovemaking) was bound to end up, if it ended up anywhere at all on the surface of those knickers. What are the chances, even by conspiratorial design, of ending up with a tiny piece of material, ‘contaminated’ by JH’s DNA, which still bears the unmistakable traces of the lover in the case, but not of the rapist who came next (if you’ll pardon the unintentional double entendre)?

To put it another way, we are being asked to swallow a DNA sandwich with the filling missing: JG, followed by Mr Nobody, followed by JH.

Love,

Caz
X

[Steve]

Hello Steve,

You’re not going to like this but we have only one person’s testimony about the car. Do we know for sure the two occupants were sat in the front seat planning a car rally or were they perhaps in the back seats otherwise engaged?

Tony.

It doesn't really make any difference whether they were sitting in the front doing a crossword puzzle, or reclining in the back seats otherwise engaged. The result was the same!

[Steve]

Hi Tony,

Ha ha! That's what I always assumed was happening at the time the gunman tapped on the window. Why sit in a quiet cornfield to plan a car rally?

Regards

We don't know for sure what they were actually doing at the time the gunman tapped on the window. Acott suggested at one point that the gunman was a peeping tom and had been watching the couple through the window. Whatever they were doing, just talking or otherwise, only Miss Storie knows for sure. My feeling on that is that she is entitled to keep that particular little snippet of information to herself!