Tweet
Hi all
The popularity of this thread stems from the many inconsistences that exist in the evidence that has been produced thus far and the verdict returned in 1962, which most people here says was cruel.
I believe that Hanratty was not involved in any way in the A6 murder. Some agree with me, some don't.
I am totally convinced by the sweetshop and Rhyl Alibi's. Hanratty may have changed his alibi in the first week of the trial at Bedford Assizes but it still included the sweetshop which is irrefutable however you want to look at it.
Identification evidence is probably the most unreliable evidence that can be placed before a court of law. Strict, empirical, third party verifiable evidence is ideal. This empiricism includes though, I believe, identification evidence, when the weight of all the validations is taken into account rather than on a per seat basis (which any idiot could destroy).
Against Hanratty, on all the evidence known today, there is no third party validation at all in any part of it. In fact no evidence exists at all to truly implicate Hanratty. The handkerchief was Hanratty's as he himself admitted in court. But he could not have put it, the gun and the live ammunition on the 36A bus because he was in Liverpool at the time.
The cartridge cases found at the Vienna did not have any incriminating evidence against Hanratty on them, bar the fact that they were found in a hotel room in which he had stayed some weeks earlier.
For Hanratty, applying the same rules, his alibi was supported by third party validation. Mrs Dinwoodie says a man like Hanratty asked for directions to thoroughfares in Liverpool just as Hanratty had described. 11 witnesses in Rhyl, at the right time and place validate what Hanratty said.
Back to the Court of Appeal in 2002. The only evidence put forward by the crown this time was DNA. No prosecution evidence at all to refute the Rhyl alibi.
The DNA evidence apparently shows that for Hanratty to not have been the killer and therefore the rapist was fairly large against in gaming parlance.
This too, is not empirical because the technique used, LCN/LT, cannot be verified by a third party. This is because of the ambivilance with regard to which RFU level allele peaks are counted. Mixed profiles are also a routine problem. As Professor Allan Jamieson so succinctly put it...If a number of people emptied their loose change out onto a table how would a third party know which coins belonged to which person... It is the same with sensitive DNA analysis techniques that involve many PCR cycles and incorporate the DNA from more than 1 person, as is the norm with sensitive techniques.
So, in conclusion.
I find it hard to understand that some people here cannot see that Hanratty is innocent. Graham for instance requires some hard nosed piece of evidence that proves Hanratty didn't do it. Others like Vic and Caz seem to think that because the semen stains on the remaining fragment belong to only the killer and that the DNA evidence says it is Hanratty, therefore if it wasn't Hanratty where has the rapists DNA gone?
I argue that in Grahams case we will never find that one irrefutable piece of evidence (like a signature in a guesthouse register). One can only go on the basis of weight of probability coupled with reasonable doubt. With what we all know now that probability falls favourably on Hanratty's side.
I also argue that with regard to the DNA evidence in 2002 it was a pure guess as far as Hanratty's profile being extracted. Victor, and others have tried to argue that only 3 profiles were found, as per the ruling judgement but this does not equate at all with the technique used as described above (with the coin analogy). God only knows how many persons DNA was on the knicker fragment and how much had actually degraded to the point of undetectability (certainly anything to do with Hanratty according to the 1995 tests).
I have spoken personally, on the telephone, with Prof Jamieson and he assures me that LCN was used and he also supplied me with some very interesting papers he had produced and a pointer to a pertinent case he had had a active part in, the Templeton Woods murders. We spoke for about a half hour, he seems like a very nice man, down to earth with a good sense of humour.
The papers he supplied me are copyrighted, that is why I have not reproduced any of them here or in any other place. If you would like more info on forensic DNA testing then just email the Forensic Institute in Glasgow and I am sure that they will gladly send it to you. URL for contacts is found @:
Finally, and certainly not least, great credit must go to Tony for pretty much keeping this thread going recently. He doesn't need the DNA evidence to think Hanratty is guilty or innocent because he believes, and has argued cogently, that Hanratty was in Liverpool and then Rhyl. It is not easy to fight a corner that looks like a loser from the outside. Well done my friend.
Kind regards to all
Reg
The popularity of this thread stems from the many inconsistences that exist in the evidence that has been produced thus far and the verdict returned in 1962, which most people here says was cruel.
I believe that Hanratty was not involved in any way in the A6 murder. Some agree with me, some don't.
I am totally convinced by the sweetshop and Rhyl Alibi's. Hanratty may have changed his alibi in the first week of the trial at Bedford Assizes but it still included the sweetshop which is irrefutable however you want to look at it.
Identification evidence is probably the most unreliable evidence that can be placed before a court of law. Strict, empirical, third party verifiable evidence is ideal. This empiricism includes though, I believe, identification evidence, when the weight of all the validations is taken into account rather than on a per seat basis (which any idiot could destroy).
Against Hanratty, on all the evidence known today, there is no third party validation at all in any part of it. In fact no evidence exists at all to truly implicate Hanratty. The handkerchief was Hanratty's as he himself admitted in court. But he could not have put it, the gun and the live ammunition on the 36A bus because he was in Liverpool at the time.
The cartridge cases found at the Vienna did not have any incriminating evidence against Hanratty on them, bar the fact that they were found in a hotel room in which he had stayed some weeks earlier.
For Hanratty, applying the same rules, his alibi was supported by third party validation. Mrs Dinwoodie says a man like Hanratty asked for directions to thoroughfares in Liverpool just as Hanratty had described. 11 witnesses in Rhyl, at the right time and place validate what Hanratty said.
Back to the Court of Appeal in 2002. The only evidence put forward by the crown this time was DNA. No prosecution evidence at all to refute the Rhyl alibi.
The DNA evidence apparently shows that for Hanratty to not have been the killer and therefore the rapist was fairly large against in gaming parlance.
This too, is not empirical because the technique used, LCN/LT, cannot be verified by a third party. This is because of the ambivilance with regard to which RFU level allele peaks are counted. Mixed profiles are also a routine problem. As Professor Allan Jamieson so succinctly put it...If a number of people emptied their loose change out onto a table how would a third party know which coins belonged to which person... It is the same with sensitive DNA analysis techniques that involve many PCR cycles and incorporate the DNA from more than 1 person, as is the norm with sensitive techniques.
So, in conclusion.
I find it hard to understand that some people here cannot see that Hanratty is innocent. Graham for instance requires some hard nosed piece of evidence that proves Hanratty didn't do it. Others like Vic and Caz seem to think that because the semen stains on the remaining fragment belong to only the killer and that the DNA evidence says it is Hanratty, therefore if it wasn't Hanratty where has the rapists DNA gone?
I argue that in Grahams case we will never find that one irrefutable piece of evidence (like a signature in a guesthouse register). One can only go on the basis of weight of probability coupled with reasonable doubt. With what we all know now that probability falls favourably on Hanratty's side.
I also argue that with regard to the DNA evidence in 2002 it was a pure guess as far as Hanratty's profile being extracted. Victor, and others have tried to argue that only 3 profiles were found, as per the ruling judgement but this does not equate at all with the technique used as described above (with the coin analogy). God only knows how many persons DNA was on the knicker fragment and how much had actually degraded to the point of undetectability (certainly anything to do with Hanratty according to the 1995 tests).
I have spoken personally, on the telephone, with Prof Jamieson and he assures me that LCN was used and he also supplied me with some very interesting papers he had produced and a pointer to a pertinent case he had had a active part in, the Templeton Woods murders. We spoke for about a half hour, he seems like a very nice man, down to earth with a good sense of humour.
The papers he supplied me are copyrighted, that is why I have not reproduced any of them here or in any other place. If you would like more info on forensic DNA testing then just email the Forensic Institute in Glasgow and I am sure that they will gladly send it to you. URL for contacts is found @:
Finally, and certainly not least, great credit must go to Tony for pretty much keeping this thread going recently. He doesn't need the DNA evidence to think Hanratty is guilty or innocent because he believes, and has argued cogently, that Hanratty was in Liverpool and then Rhyl. It is not easy to fight a corner that looks like a loser from the outside. Well done my friend.
Kind regards to all
Reg
Comment