a6 murder

[Limehouse]

Simon, are you saying Hanratty was a peeping tom and he gained some sort of gratification from spying on the couple? I must say, although people have said Hanratty's behaviour around women was good (and he did seem to have a good number of women speaking up in his favour) I am worried by his alleged sexual encounter with Dixie's young daughter and his frequenting of prostitutes. It seems to point to a rather highly sexed fellow - rather like Gregstern.

[simon]

Maybe the peeping Tom thing wasn't something he'd ever indulged in before..I just believe the 'random abduction' theory that some here insist upon holds more water if we assume there was something particularly appealling to him about that couple in that car. And, for once, he had a gun with him.

[reg1965]

Hi Graham
You say you still need one piece of evidence that proves that Hanratty was not the gunman?

I assume that this is because, although you had previously doubted Hanratty's guilt, you have been swayed. I think that you have certainly been swayed by the DNA evidence. I also believe that you have been swayed by Leonard Millers's book.
I say this because you have mentioned Hanratty's personality, as being shaped by his childhood experiences, as holding the key to, and thus providing a motive for, the murder. Millers book is the only time I have come across this rationale.
Even as early as 1963, Fenner Brockway made excuses for Hanratty on the grounds on mental incompetence. I do not buy that on the grounds that he was competent enough to stand trial and when cross examined acquitted himself ably against crown council.
Where Miller has gotten his accounts of Hanratty's childhood we know. This is from the fact that he did not include any additional references to other material (bar 2 footnotes to other books early on) so it must have been the other books he has read on the case. None of them even suggest the horrors that Miller makes out of them. So we can only assume therefore Miller has made it all up, along with his ridiculous 'The Crime' chapter, or plagurised as yet undiscovered sources of information.
As to DNA, all I can say on this is that if you really believe that the DNA analysis evidence presented to the court of appeal in 2002 was kosher then good luck. One scientists advice to another - have a read up on LCN DNA.

You do not need any other evidence to tell that Hanratty was not guilty. There is no strong empirical evidence to prove he is guilty. Beside he wasn't there. (oops...my jimisinnocentok face poking thru)

Regards
Reg

[reg1965]

Despite the announcement regarding the DNA evidence, I simply am not convinced of Hanratty's guilt. I know that I should be, BUT I am not!
Please forgive any unwitting ignorance on my behalf, but has anyone previously raised issue over the possible falsification of the DNA findings, or is everyone merely compliant with whatever the powers-that-be, in this country, put out as supposed fact?

Hi PC49
The vast majority of DNA findings are invalid using the technique known as LCN (up to 70%). This is unacceptable in the criminal justice system due to the destructive nature of DNA (or other forensic) analysis techniques. The LCN technique would not have produced perfect profiles but a mixed profile from all of the DNA taken from the fragment available. The reflective florescent capability of the detected microscopic levels of DNA would have been so low so as to make any one persons DNA undectable from another. One can move the RF level up and down and make an arbitary guess, as has to be done, but it doesn't exclude the innocent and it certainly doesn't ascertain the guilty.
I am not guilty of being one of those you say are compliant with the powers that be. I think for myself.

Regards
Reg

[jimarilyn]

Hi PC49, and welcome to this fascinating thread. In response to your question Is everyone merely compliant with whatever the powers-that-be in this country put out as supposed fact ? I can speak only for myself and say that I too (like Reg1965) like to think for myself. These powers that be have over the last few decades earned the distrust of many people in this country. The following post (176) was submitted by myself on 13th of April.

Hi

This certainly remains a very fascinating and intriguing case. So much just doesn't add up. Armchair detectives that we all are, we are only as good as the information, testimony and evidence that is presented to us. We may well interpret that information slightly differently ( according to our own personal persuasions ) to one another but I think at the end of the day (midnight perhaps) we're all after the same thing, namely the whole (and very elusive) truth of what happened the night of August 22nd/23rd 1961.

Personally speaking, I believe in James Hanratty's innocence for many and varied reasons, not least of which are his letters from prison to various family members. What does any of us know about DNA profiling, it's a very specialised field and a law unto itself. How can a lay person challenge any DNA findings without acquiring the necessary knowledge and wherewithal to do so. We find ourselves in a position (due to our complete lack of knowledge and understanding on the subject) where (unless we bow down to our so called superiors) we are considered loopy and ridiculous if we dare challenge any establishment findings.

best wishes

regards

James

[johnl]

Pc 49

Hello PC49
congratulations on being welcomed by Reg and jimarilyn, the two most free-thinking and open-minded contributors to this thread

Johnl

[jimarilyn]

Hello PC49
congratulations on being welcomed by Reg and jimarilyn, the two most free-thinking and open-minded contributors to this thread

Johnl

Thank you ex-freemason for the compliment. You're too kind.

regards,

James

[johnl]

jimarilyn
Think nothing of it; I don't consider you to be "loopy and ridiculous" either, although I am aware that you are considered thus on the JFK assassination thread.
Ah! so many conspiracies and so little time! I'm off to hatch another one with my masonic friends and then I intend to read " Mrs Paine's Garage"
johnl

[jimarilyn]

jimarilyn
Think nothing of it; I don't consider you to be "loopy and ridiculous" either, although I am aware that you are considered thus on the JFK assassination thread.
Ah! so many conspiracies and so little time! I'm off to hatch another one with my masonic friends and then I intend to read " Mrs Paine's Garage"
johnl

I gather you are referring to the infamous "Dougie" johnl. Enough said.

regards,

James

[johnl]

jimarilyn
No, not just Dougie, it seemed to be the general concensus.
Reading 41 sources of information and not visiting the thread since June, if I didn't know better I'd say you were frightened!
johnl

[reg1965]

Hi PC49
My sincere commiserations on being welcomed by Johnl. A welcome from him is like a dose of the clap.
Reg

[johnl]

Reg
I did not welcome him, I congratulated him. I see you are still not reading the posts properly!
johnl

[jimarilyn]

Reg
I did not welcome him, I congratulated him. I see you are still not reading the posts properly!
johnl

Johnl, I usually refrain from calling people idiots but in your case I'll make an exception. You've come on this thread today it would seem just to cause mischief and stir things. Here's hoping you make a full recovery from whatever illness you're suffering from.

regards,

James

[reg1965]

Reg
I did not welcome him, I congratulated him. I see you are still not reading the posts properly!
johnl

James has beaten me to it...but what the hell

Do you think I give a gnat's chuff what you think. You do not have an original thought in your head. Arguing with you is like talking into a dead telephone. Perhaps you may come up with something interesting in the distant future then most people on here may get a little more interested in what you have to say. savvy?

Reg

[johnl]

jimarilyn and reg
perhaps you could both tell me why the number of posters and frequency of posts on this thread has plummeted, bearing in mind that my posts are few and far between
Think about it!!!!!!
johnl