Originally posted by reg1965
View Post
So you have a real and genuine reasonable doubt as to the validity of the DNA evidence? So where are you going to go now? I, in turn, have a real and genuine doubt as to the validity of the Rhyl Alibi evidence. The fact is that the DNA evidence has a far more solid basis than the Rhyl Alibi evidence.
It's not that you've touched a nerve, Reg - I've been contributing to this thread far longer than you have, and I'm well aware of the pitfalls surrounding any argument one might throw up - but what I do find irksome is the rather holier-than-thou attitude of the Jim-Is-Innocent faction. Jim may well have been innocent until the DNA, but he isn't now.
In my own particular case, as a child of the anti-Establishment 1960's (sorry if this sounds poncy - it isn't meant to be) just about anything Paul Foot put his name to in those far-off days was Holy Grail as far as I and a few million other long-haired so-and-so's were concerned. I used to go on anti-Vietnam protests down at the US Embassy, and might have gone (even) to Greenham Common, had not the harpies who were encamped there scared the hell out of me. Hanratty was anti-Establishment personified. I believed Foot. Woffinden was only an echo of Foot, with a few extra details thrown in. The A6 Case was as celebre a cause as you could ever find. To support Foot and Hanratty was to put the boot into the Establishment. When the results of the DNA were first publicised I was amazed, astonished and, frankly, sceptical. However, I have never, ever, not to this day, the other place notwithstanding, seen any good reason to doubt the results. DNA, like finerprints, is not a matter of personal opinion - it is fact, scientific fact. To doubt it is to doubt the very basis of scientific criminal investigation in the 21st century, something which I am not prepared to do. Simple as that.
I sincerely hope that at some time in the future, the Hanratty family, or supporters of Hanratty, will be able to stage a new appeal. I would dearly love to see the DNA tests repeated by some third party with no axe to grind, but in all honesty I can't see that happening. To an extent, the A6 Case bears a resemblance to those who claim that Walter Sickert was Jack the Ripper - he might have been, but the vastly overwhelming evidence points to the fact that he wasn't. The populist view may well be that Hanratty was innocent - the vastly overwhelming scientific evidence points to the fact that he wasn't. There is still a part of me that wants Hanratty to be innocent, otherwise all my 1960's anti-Establishment angst is wasted - but he was NOT innocent. The science tells us he wasn't. It didn't need Leonard Miller to tell me that.
I'm out of breath - puff, pant!
Cheers,
Graham
Comment