a6 murder

[Graham]

I wonder if a similar intense and prolonged debate would have ensued had JH's incrimination been down to fingerprint evidence...

Cheers,

Graham

[reg1965]

Hi Reg

The review was instigated by the CPS and I would think that there is an element of whitewash in it. Let's face it, the CPS would never want any doubt to be cast on the scientific principles.

Regards
James

James
Too true.
A crucial point that Jamieson and Bader make is that the Regulator and service providers should be independent of each other, under prudent government guidelines. So what happens? The FSS has a copy of the review paper THREE WHOLE WEEKS before it is published. Independent my a**e!
Regards
Reg

[JamesDean]

Hepworth trousers

Hi all,

If the 'Hanratty did it' brigade think that it is highly unlikely that the DNA test is somehow flawed perhaps someone can suggest how another unlikely event occurred. How did Hanratty fire two shots into Gregsten's head without getting any blood on his clothes. Ok the jacket was disposed of but he is supposed to have driven the car from the layby to Redbridge. Are we supposed to believe that the driver's seat had none of Gregsten's blood on it? He was sitting in the driver's seat when he was shot. How did Hanratty avoid getting any blood on the trousers? That's more unlikely to me than Hanratty's DNA getting on the fragment of knicker by contamination.

Regards
James

[Dupplin Muir]

The identification evidence

Hello all

Many posters have accepted that it was VS's identification of JH as her assailant that was the main cause of his conviction. However, I find her
absolute certainty to be rather alarming, given the way her story changed and that she picked the wrong man at the initial identity parade.

It does seem that there is a fundamental inconsistency in the way her evidence is viewed. Her identification of Hanratty is defended on the grounds
that she was in the car with him for several hours, although she only got a brief glimpse of him in all that time. On the other hand, her inconsistencies and errors are excused on the basis that she had been through a traumatic experience and was still suffering from the effects of her wounds, but these factors are not considered to affect the reliability of her identification of JH.

When a person has been through a highly-traumatic experience it is quite common to suffer a degree of amnesia, and it is natural that the human mind will strive to fill in the gaps, and in this condition the person is often extremely suggestible. If the police showed her a picture of Hanratty and told her that he was the culprit, it is likely that she would incorporate him into her narrative. If they also mentioned that he was a cockney, this would explain her ability to identify his voice if (as has been suggested) the other men on the identity parade were not cockneys. I am, of course, assuming that the voice identification was separate from the visual identification - that VS picked out Hanratty from the line-up, and then listened to the voices without seeing who was speaking. On the other hand, if she just pointed to Hanratty and said 'That's him' and then heard him speak, I am afraid the voice i.d. is worthless. Even if he'd spoken like Laurence Olivier she'd have recast her story to incorporate this fact. This is certainly not lying, but an inability to accept that one's memories are not reliable, and that they are especially unreliable when one has been through a truly nightmarish experience as VS had.

As a reality-check, look at the testimony of Hanratty's alibi witnesses. They saw the person in broad daylight, for a longer period of time than VS did, and they were not traumatised as she was, yet they were definitely more hesitant in their identifications than she was.

As a side issue, does anyone know why only a small piece of the underwear was retained? Surely they weren't that short of storage space?

DM

[Graham]

Hi all,

If the 'Hanratty did it' brigade think that it is highly unlikely that the DNA test is somehow flawed perhaps someone can suggest how another unlikely event occurred. How did Hanratty fire two shots into Gregsten's head without getting any blood on his clothes. Ok the jacket was disposed of but he is supposed to have driven the car from the layby to Redbridge. Are we supposed to believe that the driver's seat had none of Gregsten's blood on it? He was sitting in the driver's seat when he was shot. How did Hanratty avoid getting any blood on the trousers? That's more unlikely to me than Hanratty's DNA getting on the fragment of knicker by contamination.

Regards
James

Was there any blood found on Alphon's clothes at the time?

Cheers,

Graham

[Graham]

On the old boards there was some debate as to what happened to the bullets fired at Gregsten. I asked if it was known if the windows or internal bodywork of the Morris were at all damaged by the bullets, as it was stated that Gregsten was 'shot through and through', i.e., the bullets passed right through him. Stan Reid came up with the perfectly reasonable thesis that the driver's window of the car was open and the bullets went through it, to be lost forever in the Bedfordshire countryside. Valerie Storie said that she could hear the blood dripping from Gregsten's wounds, so it must have gone somewhere, but (horrible to contemplate) just how much blood is actually produced from a fatal head-wound when the victim is sitting upright? Once the heart has ceased to function, would there indeed be all that much blood?

I understand that the police stated that the interior of the car was somewhat bloodied, but that a blanket had been placed across the driving seat. (I'm not 100% certain of this, to be honest...further information requested). Given that Gregsten's body was removed from the car, given that the blanket could well have soaked up a good deal of the resulting blood, then perhaps whoever drove the car away wouldn't have been too tainted by surplus blood. I have never seen a photo of the interior of the Morris, although I understand that photos were taken after the discovery of the car, and at least one photo made public. If anyone can reproduce a photo of the car's interior, then I'd be hugely interested to see it.

Nevertheless, it's a valid (though disturbing) point.

Cheers,

Graham

[JamesDean]

On the old boards there was some debate as to what happened to the bullets fired at Gregsten. I asked if it was known if the windows or internal bodywork of the Morris were at all damaged by the bullets, as it was stated that Gregsten was 'shot through and through', i.e., the bullets passed right through him. Stan Reid came up with the perfectly reasonable thesis that the driver's window of the car was open and the bullets went through it, to be lost forever in the Bedfordshire countryside. Valerie Storie said that she could hear the blood dripping from Gregsten's wounds, so it must have gone somewhere, but (horrible to contemplate) just how much blood is actually produced from a fatal head-wound when the victim is sitting upright? Once the heart has ceased to function, would there indeed be all that much blood?

I understand that the police stated that the interior of the car was somewhat bloodied, but that a blanket had been placed across the driving seat. (I'm not 100% certain of this, to be honest...further information requested). Given that Gregsten's body was removed from the car, given that the blanket could well have soaked up a good deal of the resulting blood, then perhaps whoever drove the car away wouldn't have been too tainted by surplus blood. I have never seen a photo of the interior of the Morris, although I understand that photos were taken after the discovery of the car, and at least one photo made public. If anyone can reproduce a photo of the car's interior, then I'd be hugely interested to see it.

Nevertheless, it's a valid (though disturbing) point.

Cheers,

Graham

Hi Graham

Quite a long time ago I saw some tv footage of a South Vietnamese being executed by a Viet Cong soldier. He was shot in the head with a handgun at close range. Death was instantaneous and the body fell immediately to the ground. As the shot was fired, what I can only describe as a fountain of blood spurted from the wound and continued to do so for quite a number of seconds. It's something I wish I had never seen. Sorry to be graphic but yes a lot of blood is produced.

Even if the A6 killer placed a blanket on the drivers seat, in the dark, I would still be amazed if he managed to drive all the way to Redbridge and not get some of the blood on his trousers.

There was no forensic evidence on Hanratty's trousers so where does that leave us?

Regards
James

[reg1965]

....The absolute bald fact of the A6 Case is that JH, rightly or wrongly, was convicted by identification and, almost equally, by his inability to prove his alibi....

Graham

(my enboldening)

Hi graham
I saw the water tank joke earlier...funny as f**k! It's the way ya tell em.

It was up to the police, on behalf of the Crown to fully investigate a defendents alibi. I agree that the defence didn't do a very good job themselves but the crown had more resources at its disposal. Several meaningful pieces of witness evidence to the Rhyl alibi were withheld from the defence until just before the end or after the trial. It was not even really certain whether Larmans name and address was disclosed at all as Sherrard later said.
At the appeal (03/62) the defence team dropped a right clanger by not producing at least evidence of several sightings of a man resembling Hanratty to at least earn a commutation of the sentence to life for further inquiries. (how barbaric our civilised society can be)
Even Louis Blom Cooper, who we all know wrote the first book on the case, who was not convinced of Hanrattys innocence was deeply concerned about the outcome of the trial. He felt that the quality of the evidence against Hanratty was poor. He has referred to Sherrard as being at the time an inexperienced junior barrister.
Kleinmann (Hanratty's solicitor) too should not be left out of the firing line when giving reasons for omitting the Rhyl alibi from the appeal. His reason; the timings of the witnesses did not fit. This must have purtained to at least Mrs Walker who said that she saw the man at around 7:30 but in a later statement clarified it to be at the time when the streetlights were coming on (which would have been a little while before sunset. Kleinmann and Swanwick (for the prosecution) both agreed that sunset on that day (22/8/61) in Liverpool was 8:30 (a little later in Rhyl but not by more than 10 minutes I would think...any exact timings anyone?).
Mrs Walker and Mr Larman were adamant about the date.
As with Mrs Walker's initial estimate of time, Mr Larman was also out by a little bit. But not much. He must have met Hanratty just as Hanratty got into town.
The accepted wisdom is that the Liverpool to Rhyl bus arrived at 20:19. Now that bus could have been late, it may of been early.
If it was on time or not too much late then the sun was still out and very low in the sky thus allowing it to shine on Hanratty's hair.
Mrs Vincent also saw the same man who asked for lodgings on the same evening. Brenda Harris, Grace Jones' daughter is also adamant that the man who stayed at Ingledene on the 22nd and 23rd August 1961 was James Hanratty. She said he was given the attic room with the green bath and ate breakfast in their own general room thus not being seen by any of the other guests that stayed there.

Regards
Reg.

[reg1965]

Hi all
I think a quick fix to the 'arguing the toss about DNA' debate would be to set up a thread under this one for it.

The more sensible of you out there can then carry on discussing the real aspects of the case without fear.

Therefore anyone in future caught 'arguing the toss about DNA' on this thread has to put a fiver in the swear box.

Agreed?

I'll start the thread up if enough DNA argument tossers are in favour.

I don't care....I love a good argument!

Much love and peace
the very (extemely!) merry Reg

[reg1965]

...As a side issue, does anyone know why only a small piece of the underwear was retained? Surely they weren't that short of storage space?...

Hi DM
You have only made 3 posts but all have been tres bon and yet worth waiting for!

About the above of yours;
I don't know. JamesDean has made some very good points about this piece of evidence.

Maybe the prosecution couldn't make its mind up as to the exact charges to bring on JH at the trial.

It ended up as purely the murder of MG.

Who gives the order as to which pieces of evidence are retained? Anybody got any enlightnening comments on this?

The retained evidence may have been mistakenly taken instead of or without something else.

If, as Steve has told us, the other charges put to JH at the hearing were withheld in case of acquittal why keep the hanky? It was placed to one side by forensics at the time as being of no use at all (1961). It would certainly have been no use at a trial on the other 2 charges.

Why were JH's Hepworth trousers handed back to the H family? These surely should have been kept if anything was (plus all of VS's knickers)?

I'm perplexed too

Reg

[JamesDean]

As a side issue, does anyone know why only a small piece of the underwear was retained? Surely they weren't that short of storage space?

DM

Hello Dupplin

The 2002 judgment says:

Thereafter, on 9 April 1962, James Hanratty’s
suitcase and clothing were returned to his father and on 22 May 1962 Valerie
Storie’s slips, her knickers and various samples were all destroyed

It is my belief that the retention of the handkerchief, the fragment of knicker and portion of slip was most likely to have been accidental. There was no reason for them to retain anything as the case was to all intents and purposes closed. If they intended to keep the knicker fragment then surely they would have kept the complete garment. As you rightly point out, it would hardly take up much storage space.

Regards
James

[johnl]

As a side issue, does anyone know why only a small piece of the underwear was retained? Surely they weren't that short of storage space?

DM

The reason that only a small piece of the underwear was retained was because it was the only piece of evidential value.
All the best
johnl

[JamesDean]

The reason that only a small piece of the underwear was retained was because it was the only piece of evidential value.
All the best
johnl

Hello johnl

How do you conclude that the fragment was the only piece of evidential value. You seem to imply that the knickers were of no evidential value, only the fragment.

Strange reasoning there johnl if I may say so.

Regards
James

[johnl]

Hello johnl

How do you conclude that the fragment was the only piece of evidential value. You seem to imply that the knickers were of no evidential value, only the fragment.

Strange reasoning there johnl if I may say so.

Regards
James

There's no reasoning involved, that's what happens.
All the best
johnl

[JamesDean]

There's no reasoning involved, that's what happens.
All the best
johnl

I can believe there's no reasoning involved, that much is apparent!

As for the second part of that sentence, you have just made it up. On several occasions you have posted 'facts' about court and prosecution procedure that are clearly nothing more than assumptions on your part because it suits the way you approach the case.

If you 'know' what took place in that court then let's have your proof. Don't just make bald statements like 'that's what happens'.

Honestly johnl, I am speechless at some of the stuff you come out with that has no basis in fact.

Regards
James