a6 murder

[Limehouse]

Hi

Just had a quick re-read of The Case of James Hanratty (Hawser), sad I know, but it keeps me off the streets.

“………….In March 1958 he was sentenced to three years corrective training. He committed a number of serious disciplinary offences and attempted to escape several times. He was eventually removed from a training prison to Manchester Prison as a recalcitrant. As a result he forfeited all his normal remission – something which rarely occurs.

“………Evidence was given by the prosecution that in the three years 1959 – 61 over 1300 persons had been sentenced to three years corrective training, and only five of these (including Hanratty) served the full term.

We will all have our own ideas about the significance of five out of 1300, but this lines up with the Sunday Times December 1966 feature on the case.

Peter.

Peter, I think this is a very important and relevant post as it gives us an insight into the behaviour of the real Hanratty. His refusal to conform reveals a person unable to take responsibility for his actions, unable to see the implications of his own behaviour and unable to show respect for anyone but himself.

[PC49]

So many imponderables!

I must be doing something wrong here, as I've tried again to post a response and I failed again & lost it - drat!!!
Third time lucky, I hope.
I have so many queries and points to raise that it will take some time to get through them all. However, I found Reg's comments on DNA most interesting and informative. Why has the media never highlighted such issues? Why has Hanratty's QC meekly accepted the findings and declared that he was glad that "the wrong man wasn't hanged"? - Quite bizarre!
How can anyone be sure that the handkerchief tested wasn't simply from the whole collection of Hanratty's clothing? I find it very difficult to believe that there was no other person's DNA on Valerie Storie's underwear - what about her own DNA at the very least?
Regarding the i.d. parade, how could Hanratty's legal team allow a situation to develop whereby he was stood alongside "normal" looking characters whilst he himself was sporting bright orange hair?
Additionally, why was he the only person with a london accent?
I can understand, to an extent, Valerie Storie's compulsion to make someone pay for the crime, illustrated by the fact that she managed to select a totally innocent party from the 1st i.d. parade. What I can't fathom is the supposed certainty of the two motorists that they'd identified the driver, after the most fleeting of glimpses. After all, a man's life was at stake.
It seems that most people accept that Hanratty was at David Cowley's shop on the afternoon of 22 August - therefore it would hav been nigh impossible to get back to London and the home counties in time to be at the cornfield. Believe me, Speke Airport was certainly not geared up to provide such rapid travel back to the capital, at that time in the 60's!!
I'd very much welcome any views and comments.
Best regards to all.

[P.L.A]

Why Jim?

Over the years we have witnessed the Appeal Court quashing convictions in such high profile controversial cases as Derek Bentley (executed), George Kelly (executed), Barry George, Birmingham 6, Guildford 4, Carl Bridgewater case, etc.

In so doing, the Establishment has acknowledged police malpractice, contaminated exhibits, doubtful expert witness testimony, dubious scientific claims, biased judges, etc.

Just what is it about James Hanratty and the A6 murder that leads countless people to believe that the Appeal Court and numerous Home Secretaries over the years have deliberately swept the truth under the carpet, knowingly upholding a conviction they know to be incorrect?

What is being hidden in this case that is so important and so different to all the successful appeals?

It can’t be just down to the funny handshake brigade – surely some of these must have been involved in a few of the high profile cases whose verdicts were quashed.

Peter.

[Victor]

I must be doing something wrong here, as I've tried again to post a response and I failed again & lost it - drat!!!
Third time lucky, I hope.

Try writing your response in Word or Notepad and copying and pasting it in! You can use other features that way too like spellchecking - not that I'm suggesting you need it.

I have so many queries and points to raise that it will take some time to get through them all. However, I found Reg's comments on DNA most interesting and informative. Why has the media never highlighted such issues? Why has Hanratty's QC meekly accepted the findings and declared that he was glad that "the wrong man wasn't hanged"? - Quite bizarre!

because Reg has a big downer on the DNA evidence and makes lots of bizarre claims and ignores others, for example, LCN is legally accepted in the UK, New Zealand and the Netherlands and yet he claims it's been internationally discredited - obviously not true.

How can anyone be sure that the handkerchief tested wasn't simply from the whole collection of Hanratty's clothing?

All of the exhibits from the trial were destroyed - the hanky and a small piece of the underwear were kept by the scientists and were re-discovered in I think 1987 (I don't have the data to confirm the date at the moment)

I find it very difficult to believe that there was no other person's DNA on Valerie Storie's underwear - what about her own DNA at the very least?

It was - they found 3 profiles, VS and JH and MG - although there is some doubt as to whether MG was positively identified.

Regarding the i.d. parade, how could Hanratty's legal team allow a situation to develop whereby he was stood alongside "normal" looking characters whilst he himself was sporting bright orange hair?
Additionally, why was he the only person with a london accent?

Good questions

I can understand, to an extent, Valerie Storie's compulsion to make someone pay for the crime, illustrated by the fact that she managed to select a totally innocent party from the 1st i.d. parade.

Yes but the guilty man Hanratty wasn't on the first ID parade.

What I can't fathom is the supposed certainty of the two motorists that they'd identified the driver, after the most fleeting of glimpses. After all, a man's life was at stake.

Now there is the crux of the problem... It suggests that the police may have "enhanced" the evidence they had against Hanratty to ensure he didn't get away with it.

It seems that most people accept that Hanratty was at David Cowley's shop on the afternoon of 22 August

Nope, "most people" don't accept that.

- therefore it would hav been nigh impossible to get back to London and the home counties in time to be at the cornfield. Believe me, Speke Airport was certainly not geared up to provide such rapid travel back to the capital, at that time in the 60's!!
I'd very much welcome any views and comments.
Best regards to all.

And a belated welcome to the boards from me too!

KR,
Vic

[Tony]

Try writing your response in Word or Notepad and copying and pasting it in! You can use other features that way too like spellchecking - not that I'm suggesting you need it.


because Reg has a big downer on the DNA evidence and makes lots of bizarre claims and ignores others, for example, LCN is legally accepted in the UK, New Zealand and the Netherlands and yet he claims it's been internationally discredited - obviously not true.


All of the exhibits from the trial were destroyed - the hanky and a small piece of the underwear were kept by the scientists and were re-discovered in I think 1987 (I don't have the data to confirm the date at the moment)


It was - they found 3 profiles, VS and JH and MG - although there is some doubt as to whether MG was positively identified.


Good questions


Yes but the guilty man Hanratty wasn't on the first ID parade.


Now there is the crux of the problem... It suggests that the police may have "enhanced" the evidence they had against Hanratty to ensure he didn't get away with it.


Nope, "most people" don't accept that.


And a belated welcome to the boards from me too!

KR,
Vic

A very good afternoon to you PC49 and to you also Vic,

Vic your post 2359 deals with PC49’s post 2358 but can I add a little to your post?

1st quote:

I do use copy and paste from word and I do need speeelcecker.

2nd quote:

I don’t know much about DNA as you know but Reg is pretty convinced and he certainly livens the board up when he gets going. I think he may have something but I don’t know.

3rd quote:

Nothing really to add.

4th quote:

Agreed.

5th quote:

Never mind the defence objecting to that ID parade. Acott knew it was totally unfair on Hanratty and even suggested that all members of the parade should wear a doctor’s cap to cover their hair but in the end it did not happen. We can only guess why. But the judge must have had misgivings about the way this was conducted. But one up for Acott with that one.

6th quote:

You know my opinion of this parade also and why on earth Sherrard did not insist that Acott bring the first identified man to court for comparison with Hanratty/Alphon beggars belief. Acott said in court he didn’t know if the man was now available. So two up for Acott on that one.

7th quote:

The police never divulged to the defence that the car had a mileage log and 200 miles were covered the previous day so it’s highly unlikely that the two witnesses who identified Hanratty even saw the murder car at all. So three up for Acott.

8th quote:

Well obviously the eleven jurors did not accept he was at the sweetshop because as PC49 says he simply could not have made it back to the cornfield but Mr Swanwick said Mrs Dinwoodie was an honest and reliable witness and even Acott said Hanratty was in London all the previous day.

9th quote:

Well done.


Tony.

[reg1965]

Hi PC49
Welcome to the jungle!

I must be doing something wrong here, as I've tried again to post a response and I failed again & lost it - drat!!!
Third time lucky, I hope.

It works now. Victors advice is very prudent. We all make mistakes, even computer scientists.

I have so many queries and points to raise that it will take some time to get through them all. However, I found Reg's comments on DNA most interesting and informative. Why has the media never highlighted such issues? Why has Hanratty's QC meekly accepted the findings and declared that he was glad that "the wrong man wasn't hanged"? - Quite bizarre!

Mansfield and his team did not have a great deal of choice when calling expert defence witnesses against the DNA analysis evidence. The Forensic Science Service at the time of the appeal in 2002 employed practically all of the qualified forensic DNA analysts. Dr Martin Evison was the only defence witness called on this point. He stuck to his guns on the real possibility of contamination although the court of appeals judgement states that he seemed to accept that the contamination must have been semen.

LCN (low copy number or low template(LT)) DNA was the technique used and would have only been needed if the amounts of DNA recovered were microscopic. The technique used in 1995 (either RFLP (restriction fragment length polymorphism) or SGM (second generation multiplex)) proved inconclusive. This proves that a great deal of degradation had ocurred. Therefore if, as Dr Whitaker stated at the appeal "a typical distribution of male and female DNA following an act of sexual intercourse" why would LCN be needed at all? How would he know the distribution of DNA? All he would have is a profile that contained all of the DNA he managed to swab up. The microscopic amounts of DNA would not produce strong enough reflective flourescence to ascertain allele peaks of one persons DNA from another. These peaks would not have shown up in the supra 150rfu levels that the validated system known as SGM+ adheres to.

Have a look at press articles about Professor Allan Jamieson of the Forensic Institute in Glasgow. He is this country's leading forensic DNA expert and was latterly head of Lothian and Borders police forensic service.

LCN has though been discredited because it does not possess the third party validation test. Victor seems like a very nice man but I am afraid he doesn't understand the severe problems that LCN DNA anaysis poses. The distructive nature of swabbing is the most important. It renders the evidence less productive for forensic analysis in the future. Why waste it on a technique like LCN.

The fact that the media has not cottoned onto this is as plain as the nose on your face. They are not interested. DNA analysis evidence is as far as they are concerned 100% correct. Only in the last year has the use of DNA as being incontravertable in British courts been called into question, most notably when Prof Jamieson went head to head in the witness box against Dr Whitaker of the FSS in the Sean Hoey appeal (Nov 2007).
This was the downfall of LCN and it was withdrawn from use pending an independent review. The review was a whitewash as the FSS (who had a monopoly input to the review. No outside organisations were allowed to see and comment on the data.) had wind of its conclusion at least 3 weeks before its release so that it could be used by the FSS in an ongoing criminal case to act as a validation for LCN. Naughty!

How can anyone be sure that the handkerchief tested wasn't simply from the whole collection of Hanratty's clothing? I find it very difficult to believe that there was no other person's DNA on Valerie Storie's underwear - what about her own DNA at the very least?

Hanratty admitted in court that it was his.

Who knows how many peoples DNA where on the fragment that existed in the 1990's. Dr Whitaker could only have been having a guess at best. The fact that he wasn't pressed on mixed profiles shows the lack of understanding by the defence at the time.
During the Templeton Woods murder case, where Professor Jamieson acted as forensic expert advisor to the defence, Dr Whitaker now had to face a lot of uncomfortable questions over mixed profiles which he could not refute. The accused Vincent Simpson was quickly found not guilty.
If the appellant had had a more robust team of forensic DNA advisors in 2002 then I think that the appeal judges would have had to at least contemplate the Rhyl alibi and the shocking amount of non-disclosure discovered by the CCRC rather than just dismiss it because of the surety of the DNA results that they swallowed.

Regarding the i.d. parade, how could Hanratty's legal team allow a situation to develop whereby he was stood alongside "normal" looking characters whilst he himself was sporting bright orange hair?
Additionally, why was he the only person with a london accent?

According to non-disclosed evidence Acott asked for skull caps to be worn. This was ignored. As to the defence team, lack of other evidence at the time and convinced of acquittal? Who knows. With hindsight I would have been all over Acott or whoever like ****! Just goes to show how enept even the most respectable or qualified people can be.

I can understand, to an extent, Valerie Storie's compulsion to make someone pay for the crime, illustrated by the fact that she managed to select a totally innocent party from the 1st i.d. parade. What I can't fathom is the supposed certainty of the two motorists that they'd identified the driver, after the most fleeting of glimpses. After all, a man's life was at stake.

The afternoon after Skillett and Blackhall had given evidence at Bedford, Skillett said to Blackhall that 'It had to have been Hanratty, the police wouldn't have arrested him otherwise'. Does this mean that Skillett and Trower saw an orange haired man being lead into the ID parade, in handcuffs?

It seems that most people accept that Hanratty was at David Cowley's shop on the afternoon of 22 August - therefore it would hav been nigh impossible to get back to London and the home counties in time to be at the cornfield. Believe me, Speke Airport was certainly not geared up to provide such rapid travel back to the capital, at that time in the 60's!!
I'd very much welcome any views and comments.
Best regards to all.

Mr Swanwick, prosecuting council in 1961 had a lot of trouble thinking of a reason why Hanratty wasn't in the shop on the Tuesday beacause of Hanrattys' accounted for movements on the Monday. He came up with the ludicrous assumption that Hanratty had bought the alibi.

Regards
Reg

[alan]

Thanks for the tip about preparing the thread on Word and cutting and pasting. I have been meaning to submit "pearls of wisdom" but I too have lost all my efforts.

[PC49]

Thanks Reg - your particular comments about DNA are fascinating, and I will certainly look further at those sources that you've mentioned. I've got to admit to being in total ignorance of procedures etc in this direction, and your point about the media not being bothered is well taken.
I'll reply further as soon as possible.
Best regards.

[jimarilyn]

Just what is it about James Hanratty and the A6 murder that leads countless people to believe that the Appeal Court and numerous Home Secretaries over the years have deliberately swept the truth under the carpet, knowingly upholding a conviction they know to be incorrect?

What is being hidden in this case that is so important and so different to all the successful appeals?

.

Hi Peter,

Two very good questions. In answer to your first question I can think of several reasons why this should be the situation, not least of which is that the exalted reputations of several very prominent people connected with the case would be in absolute tatters if it ever came to light that James Hanratty was wrongly executed.

In answer to your second question just one example is the voluminous suicide notes of Dixie France which have been carefully hidden away from public scrutiny by the authorities.

regards,

James

[PC49]

Very well said, James.
Your first point of issue has nagged away at me for years, and I feel that it was not only Peter Alphon who considered James Hanratty to be "expendable." The extension of this view by the Establishment is surely there for all to see.
In addition, it is surely suspicious in the extreme as to why the France suicide notes have never seen the light of day, and probably never will.
With regards.

[Dupplin Muir]

Another case involving Dr Whitaker

Hello PC49, and a belated welcome to the forum.

You will find, as I have done, that some of the posters have an absolutely phenomenal knowledge of the case.

You might be interested in another case, which is reported on:

http://www.eveningtimes.co.uk/news/display.var.1679494.0.0.php?act=complaint&cid=572882

A murder case was thrown out due to a defence objection. No-one knows exactly what the objection was, but given that Dr Whitaker was on the stand at the time, it seems reasonable to assume that there was something wrong with the DNA evidence which the prosecution were relying on.

DM

[Joseph]

Peter Alphon

Good afternoon everybody,

I too have been impressed with just how knowledgable posters are on this thread. I have followed this intriguing thread quite closely over the last few months and was wondering if anybody knows whether Peter Alphon is still alive or not.
I would guess that he'd be in his late 70's by now if he is indeed still with us.

Peace and kind regards,

Joseph

[Graham]

Hi Joseph,

On the old site Steve (whose continuing absence from these threads is a worry) related how he had tracked Alphon down, but for the sake of that gentlemen's privacy declined to identify just where he was living. But yes, Alphon is still around. He'd be 78 now.

Cheers,

Graham

[maverick20058]

Back again - with nagging doubts still!!!

Hello everybody

I posted the "old " thread previously; thought it had disappeared and was delighted to see it had been reformed..it took a while to plough through all the excellent messages..many thanks to everyone and am so glad to see this topic is alive and well!!!

I was at school on Bedford as the A6 case was hotting up and Paul Foot's book was launched in the year that I left (1971). John Kerr was at the same school but left before me so unfortunately I did not really know him.

I was firmly in the JH innocent/PLA guilty/Paul Foot/Bob Woffinden/Mystery of Deadman's Hill camp until the DNA result in which I have acquiesced (accepted reluctantly). I am now a JH guilty/Leonard Miller/Valerie Storie man but it does not mean I do not have nagging doubts. I hope you do not mind me giving some of my thoughts which are foremost in my mind about this intriguing case.

I always thought Dixie France was the key man in the case..the "arranger" who obtained the gun and framed Hanratty. His suicide haunted me..now I think he was a tortured soul..the photo of him with his family suggests a man who wanted respectability but was unable to be the provider without resorting to being on the fringes of the underworld. Hanratty being charged and he and his family being dragged into court was the last straw for this (probably) clinically depressed person.

Also, JH's last letters to his family also haunted me. I hope the explanation I put forward does not offend anyone but I think that JH had mild, if not acute, schizophrenia. This terrible condition was not seriously recognised at the time of the case..I had a member of my family (maiden Aunt) who was similarly afflicted and the only "cure" was shock treatment with no remedial treatment or analysis. I have to say (again without speaking ill of people) that she was capable of being in TOTAL denial of any wrong things that she had done..she could look you straight in the eye and tell untruths. That explains the last letters to me.

Finally..what DID JH do on the 22nd August in the hours between getting a train from Paddington and 9.30 p.m.?? If only we could trawl through archives and see if any burglaries had been reported..what was on at the cinemas..whether anything untoward was reported at the Bear Hotel Maidenhead??? Any ideas??

Well I've rambled on long enough but this is only part of what I have to get off my chest after all this time!!!

Have a good evening everybody

[Graham]

Hiya Maverick,

Welcome back! Yes, the topic is still alive, but don't know if it's 'well'...

Quick responses to your post:

1] John Kerr was obviously rather 'posh' and not the sort of bloke who would lose his head in circumstances even as horrible as a murder...he seemed to have no doubt at all that JH did it. Not that that proves anything, of course...

2] Leonard Miller (or whatever his real name might be) didn't actually contribute anything new to the case. What he did do, IMHO, was to cut through the rather sanctimonious rhetoric of the Foot/Woffinden take on the case, and lay matters out on the marble slab of reality. And then he went and ruined all his efforts by indulging in that silly 'reality-style' chit-chat towards the end of his book.

3] Dixie may not be the 'key' to the case, but without any doubt at all, in my mind at least, he knew more than he ever told. I'm not sure he actually obtained the gun for JH, but I am convinced that he assisted JH in getting rid of it - and fingered him at the same time. Back then, oddly enough, guns were easier to get hold of than to get rid of - and I can't help but think that had JH taken the obvious step of chucking the thing into The Thames we wouldn't be debating the A6 Case except as a Great British Unsolved Murder.
I think France was, as you say, a tortured soul...he had lived a life of petty crime, saw no way out, and the A6 tipped the scales for him. Fencing was one thing...murder something else.

4] Re: JH's denial. He's not the only one. John Cannan, who murdered Shirley Banks and whose guilt was totally established by forensics, has never ever ceased to deny any responsibility for that crime. Unlike Hanratty, Cannan is educated and resourceful, but nevertheless he is in total denial. Perhaps in Cannan's case it's not so much a mental state as a fear of being done for other unsolved murders (Suzy Lamplugh's being one), but for all that he's held out for years. I've long been convinced that Hanratty was psychologically incapable of coming to terms with what he did, and for that reason alone should have been reprieved...but he wasn't.

5] We'll never know what Hanratty did between leaving the Vienna and turning up in that cornfield. Maybe he spent some time trying to find a suitable empty house to burgle, but failed.

6] As I've said many times, any conspiracy connected with the A6 Case occurred after the murder, not before.

7] Alphon's presence in the case was totally coincidental.

8] Finally - and then I'll belt up - unlike the Ripper Case, in my view the A6 Case is something of a closed book. Ripper enthusiasts can come up with name after name as a potential suspect, and it can be debated until the cows come home, but not so with the A6. I don't think we can ever really move on until:

a] someone repeats the DNA testing on the available exhibits;
b] the last letters of Dixie France are made available - and even if they are, the chances are they wouldn't tell us much;
c] all of the police evidence is made public;
d] Valerie Storie agrees to a further interview - which I don't think will ever happen, and even if it did, I can't see her altering her views. And why should she? She was there, she knows what happened in the Morris Minor.
e] someone, perhaps on his death-bed, utters something completely previously unknown.

That's it! I've got a nice glass of German weiss-bier to sup, and then I'm off to my rest!

Good post, Maverick.

Cheers,

Graham