a6 murder

[Graham]

Hello Graham
Have I hit some kind of nerve with you? I didn't make any mention of camps demarked into Hanratty did it or otherwise in my post! I have a real and genuine reasonable doubt as to the validity of the DNA evidence as was presented to the Court of Appeal (2002). If you have read my post in the other place then you would know this.
Appeals come up with new evidence, maybe some time in the future a new appeal will be won by the Hanratty family and the doubts that some people now have with the DNA will be put forward. You seem to want to put this to bed now. I'm afraid that will never be the case...Not as long as I'm alive it certainly wont.

As with Miller, of course he is intitled to his opinions and I would love to meet him face to face to discuss the matter but that is not the point. You accept the DNA and I don't...so what. That is your opinion..what is that worth? What is mine worth? Everyone else will decide what they want to believe.

I am not sure what your point here is. If I have mistaken your point then please let me know.

Reg

Reg,

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

[JamesDean]

DNA, like fingerprints, is not a matter of personal opinion - it is fact, scientific fact.

I think there is a fundamental difference between fingerprints and DNA. I'm not aware of any way that fingerprints can be transferred by contamination; therefore fingerprints give a direct and positive connection between a crime scene exhibit and the owner of the finger that made the print. If Hanratty's fingerprints were on the gun that killed Gregsten then I would say that the evidence against Hanratty was impressive. DNA can most certainly be transferred by contamination and that is a scientific fact. As DM mentioned on the other thread it takes only a single cell of contamination to show a positive result using the technique of analysis that was used in the Hanratty case.

The forensic collection, handling and storage of DNA used for evidential purposes has to follow strict guidelines to avoid cross contamination. None of those procedures was adhered to in 1961 for obvious reasons. How anyone can think that contamination in those circumstances is an impossibility, simply because it was discounted as such in the judgment, is beyond my understanding. It's not about faith in the science; the science works and no-one is, I think, disputing that Hanratty's DNA was found during the investigation of the fragment. That doesn't explain how the DNA got there despite the judgment postulating its own theory. The judgment arrives at its conclusion that the DNA was from sexual relations between VS and JH and not from a contamination event by the application of skewed logic - in my opinion. I'm quite happy to expand on that if required. As for DNA being scientific fact and not personal opinion, the analysis of DNA is subject to interpretation so there is a degree of personal opinion involved.

I note from the judgment that Dr Grant examined the trousers the day before he examined Valerie Storie's knickers and slip:-

It appears from the records that Dr Grant examined the green jacket and trousers on
28 December 1961 and Valerie Storie’s slips and knickers the following day.

Had the knickers and slip been examined the day before the trousers then I would not consider Dr Grant's examination of the exhibits to be the cause of any suspected contamination. However, it was the trousers he examined first and I would think there is a better than even chance that he examined the knickers on the same work surface on the following day. Maybe the work surface was scrupulously cleaned after the trousers had been examined but I doubt that would have been considered necessary. It was on this same occasion of examining the knickers that Dr Grant made his excision of the fragment. Invisible to the naked eye, microscopic contamination from the trousers deposited on the work surface could easily have transferred to the fragment. It does not take any stretch of the imagination to envisage that event taking place.

In today's DNA aware forensic labs it is much less likely that contamination events can occur because the collection, handling and storage of DNA evidence is carefully controlled; none of which happened in 1961 and that is fact.

I conclude, therefore, that contamination was a real possibility and not something fanciful that has been dreamed up by the 'Hanratty was innocent brigade'.

Regards
James

[alan]

Dear All,

Thank you for welcoming me to this thread.

I have, of course, many queries of my own and probabably all of which have been well and truly aired previously.

I find it very difficult to believe that no forensic was found on the trousers. That being correct however, can't we assume that he was wearing different trousers. Even in 1961 I expect most young men had a reasonable wardrobe.

Although he carried his stuff about in a suitcase, he may well have had other clothes stored elsewhere. He seems to have used railway station lockers. Paddington for example or even Euston. He must have used a few house-breaking implements for burglary, keys and bits of wire for car theft and he must have kept them somewhere too.

I don't like the train trip to Liverpool at all. Firstly the wrong station, then not knowing the time of departure, the gentleman sitting opposite who inconveniently never came forward and the doubt over the time of arrival. All this suggests to me that the train journey was another fabrication. To steal a car from the Paddington area and drive to Liverpool collecting something from possibly a Paddington locker might also be something to think about.

Watches on the black-market in the sixties I recall as being quite common. Would anyone really try to sell a watch with no winder when a repair would be very cheap and readily available. I don't think so but it would serve to help an alibi; people would remember that.

Is the consensus that, like Rhyll, the Liverpool visit on the critical day was also false. If so where does that leave the Dinwoody evidence?

Alan

[jimarilyn]

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.

Hi Graham,

1) Pre 2002 when you were convinced of James Hanratty's innocence, I guess you were pretty impressed by the Rhyl alibi and the trustworthy witnesses living there who came forward to testify that they had seen Hanratty there on August 22nd/23rd 1961. Did you think that the alibi was valid then ?

2) Can you explain why you feel "the Jim is innocent" faction comes across as "holier than thou" ? I'm totally mystified by this statement.

3) If I remember correctly you weren't so glowing or complimentary in your praise of Paul Foot just a couple or so months ago. You say Hanratty was "anti-Establishment personified", is this because he was a petty criminal ? Are all petty criminals then anti-Establishment ? I'm sure Paul Foot didn't deliberately go out of his way to "put the boot into the Establishment". Having a political conscience and awareness he rebelled against social injustices and if that meant having a go at the Establishment then he wasn't afraid to do so.


regards,

James


PS. Has Steve re-surfaced under a new nom-de-plume ?

[Graham]

Jimarilyn,

To respond to your post:

1] Pre-2002 I was not impressed at all by either the Rhyl or the Liverpool alibis, for the simple reason I just accepted them as genuine (but never felt really comfortable with the way JH changed his alibi during the trial). Only after the DNA was published did I begin seriously to doubt JH's innocence, and only then did I begin to look rather deeper into the case.

2] I have the impression (well, more than an impression, actually) that one or two contributors who plainly believe in JH's innocence are only too ready and willing to hand out extremely negative (and often abusive) comments to anyone who disagrees with them, and don't seem to accept even a remote possibility that they may be wrong. I have been on the receiving end of this, and also Leonard Miller - or at least his book has.

3] Re: Paul Foot, a while ago I simply said that he was wrong. Which he was.
Also, I never said that Hanratty [I]himself[I] was anti-establishment; I said that the Hanratty Is Innocent movement was anti-establishment, which to an extent it was. Paul Foot was also very much anti-Estabishment - I suggest you're probably too young to remember him in his early days. But then again, anyone with a social conscience in the 1960's was anti-Establishment.

Sorry to see that you've only picked out what you see as the negative aspects of my post, and haven't made a comment on what I said about the possibility of a new DNA test. Oh well.

Graham

[jimarilyn]

Jimarilyn,
To respond to your post:

1] Pre-2002 I was not impressed at all by either the Rhyl or the Liverpool alibis, for the simple reason I just accepted them as genuine (but never felt really comfortable with the way JH changed his alibi during the trial). Only after the DNA was published did I begin seriously to doubt JH's innocence, and only then did I begin to look rather deeper into the case.

2] I have the impression (well, more than an impression, actually) that one or two contributors who plainly believe in JH's innocence are only too ready and willing to hand out extremely negative (and often abusive) comments to anyone who disagrees with them, and don't seem to accept even a remote possibility that they may be wrong. I have been on the receiving end of this, and also Leonard Miller - or at least his book has.

3] Re: Paul Foot, a while ago I simply said that he was wrong. Which he was.Also, I never said that Hanratty [I]himself[I] was anti-establishment; I said that the Hanratty Is Innocent movement was anti-establishment, which to an extent it was. Paul Foot was also very much anti-Estabishment - I suggest you're probably too young to remember him in his early days. But then again, anyone with a social conscience in the 1960's was anti-Establishment.Sorry to see that you've only picked out what you see as the negative aspects of my post, and haven't made a comment on what I said about the possibility of a new DNA test. Oh well.Graham

Hi Graham,

We all have a natural tendency to pick out aspects of a post we feel we are best equipped to comment on. I thought JamesDean dealt with your last paragraph (re. the DNA) admirably and much better than I ever could.

I think you need to re-read your post (2161) as you clearly say "Hanratty was anti-Establishment personified"

You have often asked for evidence that Hanratty was in Rhyl. The onus was not on Hanratty's defence to prove that he was in Rhyl at the critical time but on the prosecution to prove that he wasn't. That trustworthy (mostly middle aged) and reliable witnesses came forward to corroborate Hanratty's alibi speaks volumes in his favour.

Anyway what constitutes concrete evidence ? Over the last few years I've stayed at places such as Carlisle, Southerness, London and Dewsbury. I know I was there and have it written down in my diary, but I can't prove it. I was ill recently and stayed home (without venturing out at all) for about three days. I can't prove that I stayed home all that time however. Lots of people must have found themselves in a similar situation, how do you prove you were in a given place at a certain time.


PS. I'm probably older than you think, Graham.

regards,

James

[Graham]

Hi James,

What I meant to convey (and I worded it badly) was that it was Hanratty as a concept rather than Hanratty the man that was anti-Establishment.

Re: your paragraph on being able to prove you were in a particular place at a particular time, a few years ago a former colleague of mine aroused the suspicion of the-then MD of our company who thought that my colleague was telling porkies when he claimed to have visited a particular customer in a particular place. The MD's suspicion was justified by previous occurrences, but in this case my colleague produced a petrol receipt from a garage in the town he said he'd visited and it was printed with the date he said he'd been there. Now that was proof-positive of his being there - and had Hanratty, for example, signed the visitor-book at Ingledene that also would be solid proof. Unfortunately, all we have re: the Rhyl Alibi is heresay, nothing more.

Anyway, let's not fall out over this, eh?

Cheers,

Graham

[Victor]

You have often asked for evidence that Hanratty was in Rhyl. The onus was not on Hanratty's defence to prove that he was in Rhyl at the critical time but on the prosecution to prove that he wasn't. That trustworthy (mostly middle aged) and reliable witnesses came forward to corroborate Hanratty's alibi speaks volumes in his favour.

Hi James,

I don't understand why the onus is on the prosecution to prove he wasn't in Rhyl, surely the onus is on the defence to offer some evidence for the alleged alibi they proposed, which the prosecution then have the opportunity to refute.

Vic

[johnl]

Hi James,

I don't understand why the onus is on the prosecution to prove he wasn't in Rhyl, surely the onus is on the defence to offer some evidence for the alleged alibi they proposed, which the prosecution then have the opportunity to refute.

Vic

Correct! If the defence of alibi is to be used' the burden of supplying the names and addresses of all relevant witnesses, or failing this any other information which could identify theses witnesses, falls on the defence. It's pretty obvious really!

johnl

[Tony]

Jimarilyn,

To respond to your post:

2] I have the impression (well, more than an impression, actually) that one or two contributors who plainly believe in JH's innocence are only too ready and willing to hand out extremely negative (and often abusive) comments to anyone who disagrees with them, and don't seem to accept even a remote possibility that they may be wrong. I have been on the receiving end of this, and also Leonard Miller - or at least his book has.

Graham

A very good morning to Graham,

I do not know who you are referring to when you say that some of the ‘Hanratty didn’t do it brigade’ are often abusive to anyone who disagrees with them. I certainly hope you don’t mean me. I honestly can say that I have not seen any abuse or aggression from anyone on our side to anyone on your side.

OK there was a bit of a heated argument between Reg1965 and Johnl but if you remember I asked them to cool it and indeed Reg1965 has started a separate thread just for the DNA debate. I do read it but don’t always understand it and I agree the arguments are more fiercely contested over there. But good luck to them and at the end of the day they do seem to be getting along nicely.

I have always believed in Hanratty’s innocence, as do many others, but we are always at a disadvantage because of the way this case has panned out: Hanratty was arrested, tried, found guilty and executed. So no more from him. Then along came the DNA to ‘prove’ he did it.

Whenever any point comes up your side says: “Ah but what about the DNA, what can you say about that then?” and we are effectively shot down. So it is obviously easier for your side because you, at this point in time, hold all the cards with the DNA evidence but that doesn’t mean we are forced to accept it.
There are so many things wrong with this case and that is why people like you and me and Jimarilyn are taking the time to keep on debating it. If everybody accepted the DNA this forum would not exist.

Eh you weren’t referring to me were you, Graham?

Tony.

[Tony]

Correct! If the defence of alibi is to be used' the burden of supplying the names and addresses of all relevant witnesses, or failing this any other information which could identify theses witnesses, falls on the defence. It's pretty obvious really!

johnl

Hello Johnl,

From the defence point of view they were at a disadvantage due to the fact that Hanratty extended his alibi and they had little or no time to investigate it. In 1962 if you were convicted of a capital crime you were executed after the passing of three Sundays.

Unlike America, where you might serve 30 years on death row before the State finally gets round to putting you to death, here you had no time to find new witnesses.

The crime was obviously very serious but no potential new witness saw Hanratty until a photograph of him was published after the trial and by then the defence had only a few days to cobble together an appeal.
The American system seems cruel and in effect almost a double sentence, 30 years and then the electric chair is plugged in or the cyanide tablets are sent for from the chemist’s or whatever, but at least when there is a doubt supporters of the condemned man do have some time to conduct further enquiries.
In Hanratty’s case there was no time and indeed it was almost ten years before Paul Foot’s book was published.

Go easy on me Johnl.

Tony.

[johnl]

Hello Johnl,

From the defence point of view they were at a disadvantage due to the fact that Hanratty extended his alibi and they had little or no time to investigate it. In 1962 if you were convicted of a capital crime you were executed after the passing of three Sundays.

Unlike America, where you might serve 30 years on death row before the State finally gets round to putting you to death, here you had no time to find new witnesses.

The crime was obviously very serious but no potential new witness saw Hanratty until a photograph of him was published after the trial and by then the defence had only a few days to cobble together an appeal.
The American system seems cruel and in effect almost a double sentence, 30 years and then the electric chair is plugged in or the cyanide tablets are sent for from the chemist’s or whatever, but at least when there is a doubt supporters of the condemned man do have some time to conduct further enquiries.
In Hanratty’s case there was no time and indeed it was almost ten years before Paul Foot’s book was published.

Go easy on me Johnl.

Tony.

Hello Tony
I'm amazed that you would think that Graham was referring to you!
I agree completely with you about the system in America being totally inhuman and a travesty of natural justice.
The time constraints on the defence team were caused by Hanratty himself and I can't, for the life of me, work out the reason he extended his alibi at the last minute other than that he was guilty and he saw his Liverpool alibi going down the pan; can you give me a possible reason?
The statements available for the appeal were not used because these were in direct contradiction of Hanratty's own testimony and would have destroyed what little was left of his credibility.
I have read the books that you so kindly gave me and I have made a few notes.
I'm surprised that the most telling sentence in either book has never been discussed- it's the statement made by McNally to Gillbanks " If Hanratty does not open up, why should I?" Comments please.
Lastly, Graham is a gentleman and what he would call a "holier than thou" attitude I would describe as "overweaning arrogance"-this does not of course apply to you as you are always courteous and measured in your posts.
All the best as always

johnl

[Graham]

Hi Tony,

No way was I referring to you. Anyway, all seems peace and harmony at the moment, so let's hope it stays that way!!

Hi JohnL,

Yes, the McNally statement has always puzzled me. Foot says that McNally was subpoenaed, which naturally enough didn't sit too well with him, and denied that he'd met Hanratty since they'd been in Lewes Prison four years before. (Oddly, although Woffinden mentions McNally, I wonder why he makes no reference to the subpoena? Woffinden also dismisses the Liverpool Alibi, and places his faith in the Rhyl Alibi).

Obviously Hanratty saw his alibi falling apart before his very eyes, and was forced to think again and come up with the Rhyl Alibi (which he wouldn't be allowed to do these days half way through the trial). This, too, led to a dead end in as much that the defence couldn't prove it. Maybe this is really what swayed the jury to bring in a guilty verdict - the fact that Hanratty was simply unable to prove that he wasn't at Dorney Reach on the night of 22nd August.

I wonder if the A6 Committee ever tried to contact McNally to ask him to explain his odd statement? Did he know something that was never brought out at the trial?

Cheers,

Graham

[Tony]

Hi Tony,

No way was I referring to you. Anyway, all seems peace and harmony at the moment, so let's hope it stays that way!!

Hi JohnL,

Yes, the McNally statement has always puzzled me. Foot says that McNally was subpoenaed, which naturally enough didn't sit too well with him, and denied that he'd met Hanratty since they'd been in Lewes Prison four years before. (Oddly, although Woffinden mentions McNally, I wonder why he makes no reference to the subpoena? Woffinden also dismisses the Liverpool Alibi, and places his faith in the Rhyl Alibi).

Obviously Hanratty saw his alibi falling apart before his very eyes, and was forced to think again and come up with the Rhyl Alibi (which he wouldn't be allowed to do these days half way through the trial). This, too, led to a dead end in as much that the defence couldn't prove it. Maybe this is really what swayed the jury to bring in a guilty verdict - the fact that Hanratty was simply unable to prove that he wasn't at Dorney Reach on the night of 22nd August.

I wonder if the A6 Committee ever tried to contact McNally to ask him to explain his odd statement? Did he know something that was never brought out at the trial?

Cheers,

Graham

Hello Graham,

Well I’m relieved I’m not the guilty party but I really can’t think who you do mean.

Anyway back to business. Your last post infers that Hanratty’s Rhyl story may have been the clincher for the jury; well I suppose we will never know. I don’t even know if any of the jurors are still alive although the odds are that one or two of them might be still around and as far as I know there isn’t any law which prevents them from commenting on the case; (evidence the fact that the jury foreman in the Carl Bridgewater case went on News at Ten to say he thought the men imprisoned were innocent). Another wrong righted by Paul Foot by the way.

What we do know, however, is that the jury took an awful long time deliberating and the very fact that they came back to ask the judge the meaning of reasonable doubt must mean that at least one of them had doubts. The judge told them that they could forget the term reasonable doubt in this case they must be certain.
It seems odd to me that the jurors then went back and however many, perhaps only one, of them after having asked to have reasonable doubt explained to them and then being told reasonable doubt did not apply here they soon became absolutely certain that Hanratty was guilty.

Speaking only for myself if I was involved in a case which had several books written about it then I would want to read every one of them. I wonder what the jurors made of Paul Foot’s book and I wonder if there was a juror who was in doubt at the time thought: “Should I speak up or had I better keep my mouth shut?”

Tony

[Victor]

From the defence point of view they were at a disadvantage due to the fact that Hanratty extended his alibi and they had little or no time to investigate it. In 1962 if you were convicted of a capital crime you were executed after the passing of three Sundays.

Hi Tony,

Don't you think the above is a bit tautological?

"the defence point of view" is equivalent to "the point of view of the legal team representing Hanratty" therefore what you are basically saying is Hanratty sabotaged his own defence.

Vic