a6 murder

[Admin]

If you cannot discuss this topic civilly you will be prevented from discussing it.

In an attempt to cool this thread off, for the next two months, any person who resorts to personal abuse of another poster on any A6 thread will be banned from the Other Mysteries forums and will not be able to post here.

Hopefully within the next two months, either the people who can't hold their tempers will be weeded out or they will have learned to discuss the topic in a civil manner.

If you see a poster who engages in personal abuse on these threads during the next few weeks, please hit report post immediately. Any negative comment about another poster will be considered abuse. Confine your comments to the case and not other posters.

Thank you.

[Victor]

Much information has been given about Valerie Storie and her ability ,from day one, to describe her ordeal,dreadful as it was, in a perfectly coherent manner.

Actually Norma both Foot and Woffinden go to great lengths to demonstrate that Valerie was quite coherent and capable of accurately mis-identifying Michael Clark, and that there should be no allowance made for the fact she was convalescing.

Therefore,when for a full week at least descriptions went out about a man with brown eyes,changed only on 31st August, one assumes the source of the description and therefore the change to that description, was Valerie herself.

That's certainly a possible explanation that can be quickly discounted by checking what Valerie herself has to say about the matter - there is no direct quote from her saying "brown eyes", only the police description.

I do not drink but you certainly seem to, judging by your posts

Yes I do, but only at evenings and weekends\bank holidays\celebrations.

oh and I don"t lie either

So why keep repeating disproven theories as if they are factual. And repeat them again after the inaccuracies have been pointed out to you.

Kindly explain the dicotomy of having an incredibly sensitive technique that would pick up the slightest smidgeon of contamination - and the DNA results that showed only 3 profiles, the two victims and Hanratty - how has the super sensitive technique managed to miss the profile of the rapist and pick up Hanratty's contamination? The only logical explanation is if Hanratty is the rapist.

KR,
Vic.

[Victor]

Especially since I have never ever questioned whether or not Valerie was raped!

Hi Norma,

Try reading the post in context - If you question whether the gunman was male or female, then by implication you are questioning whether the victim was raped.

KR,
Vic.

[Natalie Severn]

Hi Norma,

Have you been drinking? That makes no sense whatsoever, Woffinden and Michael Hanratty were clamouring for the DNA tests, and only objected when they didn't say what they wanted to hear. There were no contaminants on the samples otherwise they would appear in the results and they didn't!

Oh and stop blatantly lying - Valerie never changed her description of her rapists eyes - even Woffinden accepts that! FFS

KR,
Vic

And this illustrates why I am wondering whether it is Vic who has some kind of "drink problem" especially since I don"t drink!!!

[Natalie Severn]

Hi Norma,

What a festering heap of bovine faeces! Valerie was raped. Semen was present in her underwear. It was blood typed.

KR,
Vic.

Nice way to debate? Especially since I have never ever questioned whether or not Valerie was raped!

[Natalie Severn]

To abusive male poster alias Victor

To Victor the "Revolting abuser"
Much information has been given about Valerie Storie and her ability ,from day one, to describe her ordeal,dreadful as it was, in a perfectly coherent manner .
Therefore,when for a full week at least descriptions went out about a man with brown eyes,changed only on 31st August, one assumes the source of the description and therefore the change to that description, was Valerie herself.

Ps.I do not drink but you certainly seem to, judging by your posts---oh and I don"t lie either but you probably do since a dirty MC pig smells its own stink first!

[Victor]

In order to be lying - a person has to have the intention of deceiving and that is clearly not the case.

Hi Julie,

I don't agree, Norma has repeated the assertion that Valerie changed her description of her attacker, and that is just not true. I can therefore only conclude that her intention is to deliberately deceive in order to hype up or sex up the case for a miscarriage of justice.

'Brown eyes' was a description circulated by the police early on in the investigation and this persisted right up to the indentity parade in which Alphon took part.

The police did issue a description that included 'brown eyes' and this was amended to 'blue' but there is no conclusive evidence that this change was Valerie changing her description. Most people now conclude that the police made a mistake and issued an inaccurate description, which was later corrected.

How can you blame doubters of Hanratty's guilt for challenging these important points?

I don't blame people for challenging important points, but I do blame people for repeating misinformation.

If Valerie was so insistant that her attacker had blue eyes right from the start of the investigation - why did she pick someone without blue eyes in the first line-up?

She didn't - where is your evidence for this?

KR,
Vic.

[Limehouse]

Hi Norma,

Oh and stop blatantly lying - Valerie never changed her description of her rapists eyes - even Woffinden accepts that! FFS

KR,
Vic

In order to be lying - a person has to have the intention of deceiving and that is clearly not the case. 'Brown eyes' was a description circulated by the police early on in the investigation and this persisted right up to the indentity parade in which Alphon took part. How can you blame doubters of Hanratty's guilt for challenging these important points? If Valerie was so insistant that her attacker had blue eyes right from the start of the investigation - why did she pick someone without blue eyes in the first line-up?

[jason_c]

Article in my local paper by Tom Foot (Paul's son).

http://www.camdennewjournal.com/revi...name-continues

I believe more than ever the campaign to clear Hanratty is now a campaign to "clear" Paul Foot.

[Stephen Thomas]

New Appeal

Article in my local paper by Tom Foot (Paul's son).

http://www.camdennewjournal.com/reviews/features/2011/jan/feature-james-hanratty-%E2%80%93-campaign-clear-his-name-continues

[Victor]

Yes.......Ha! Ha! Ha!-----you must be referring to the "LCN" DNA tests, Vic, riddled as they were with contaminants ----- what a whiff!

Hi Norma,

Have you been drinking? That makes no sense whatsoever, Woffinden and Michael Hanratty were clamouring for the DNA tests, and only objected when they didn't say what they wanted to hear. There were no contaminants on the samples otherwise they would appear in the results and they didn't!

Oh and stop blatantly lying - Valerie never changed her description of her rapists eyes - even Woffinden accepts that! FFS

KR,
Vic

[Natalie Severn]

Good call

Thanks Black Rabbit. It certainly raises a number of questions.
Cheers,
Norma

[Natalie Severn]

a festering heap of bovine faeces!

KR,
Vic.

Yes.......Ha! Ha! Ha!-----you must be referring to the "LCN" DNA tests, Vic, riddled as they were with contaminants ----- what a whiff!

[Black Rabbit]

Hi JP56,
Someone said earlier to me the headline of that article which stated, "She saw him at the Cleaners" ought perhaps to be reworded to ,"She took him to the cleaners"---someone certainly did!.
The day Janet Gregsten "identified" Hanratty as her husband murderer, having seen him entering Burtols cleaners in the arcade -a few yards only from William Ewer"s Antiques -cum- Umbrella-cum -all sorts shop",Valerie Storie was moved from Bedford Hospital to Guy"s Hospital and on that same day changed her description of the murder"s eyes.

That day was 31st August 1961.

Lets try to understand this one.

Good call

[Natalie Severn]

Hi JP56,
Someone said earlier to me the headline of that article which stated, "She saw him at the Cleaners" ought perhaps to be reworded to ,"She took him to the cleaners"---someone certainly did!.
The day Janet Gregsten "identified" Hanratty as her husband murderer, having seen him entering Burtols cleaners in the arcade -a few yards only from William Ewer"s Antiques -cum- Umbrella-cum -all sorts shop",Valerie Storie was moved from Bedford Hospital to Guy"s Hospital and on that same day changed her description of the murder"s eyes.

That day was 31st August 1961.

Lets try to understand this one.