a6 murder

[reg1965]

I agree, Simon, I don't think Acott displayed an 'ANYBODY will do' attitude.

Regards,
Jim

Hi Jim
Why then, after Alphon had not been picked out by VS, did the old bill withhold so much vital evidence regarding the cars mileage and other sightings, interviews with VS regarding identification, the Kerr notes, withholding of Rhyl witness names and so on in the trial of JH. They also fabricated their interview notes with JH to include stuff like 'kip'.
Reg

[PC49]

I agree, Simon, I don't think Acott displayed an 'ANYBODY will do' attitude.

Regards,
Jim

With all respect, Simon and Jim, I'm not necessarily saying that Acott displayed an attitude of "anybody" will do. He settled on "Hanratty will do" and clearly proceeded to pursue that target relentlessly.
I'm simply not taken in by the convenient so-called evidence that was gathered together, when so much was kept under wraps or distorted.
Why so much deviousness on Acott's behalf? He wouldn't have been the first high-ranking police officer to fit somebody up for a major crime!
With regards.

[PC49]

Hi Jim
Why then, after Alphon had not been picked out by VS, did the old bill withhold so much vital evidence regarding the cars mileage and other sightings, interviews with VS regarding identification, the Kerr notes, withholding of Rhyl witness names and so on in the trial of JH. They also fabricated their interview notes with JH to include stuff like 'kip'.
Reg

Hi Reg,
I've never totally understood the situation concerning the morris minor's mileage log, perhaps you could provide a brief overview of it, please?
Many thanks.
With best regards.

[Victor]

Hi Vic
With LCN, involving such old DNA which was not stored properly (ie in envelopes instead of being frozen) the amount of DNA is microscopic and from the swabbed sample we would expect a mixed profile, VS/MG and A N Other. You just cannot detect one profile from another at the low rfu units exhibited by LCN.

Ah but if they used the semen-only technique then all the degraded DNA and all the DNA that isn't from an intact sperm head is removed so we'd only expect JH and MG, and surprise surprise that's exactly what they found.

Just because the FSS says they have a match and 3 non-experts buy it doesn't impress me too much.

And the 6 experts consulted?

The FSS dismissed Alphon (the appellant swallowed this) but on what grounds? The same as above? Good luck!

Yes, the semen on VS knickers did not match Alphon so he was dismissed on those grounds.

Yes semen was found in 1961, and it was O secretor, but not enough exists today to determine a 3rd party validatable single profile of the gunman.

True not enough exists to give a match using those exacting criteria, but enough existed to provide a legally-valid positive match with Hanratty.

We will just have go on ALL the other evidence now available. Hanratty is innocent.

Reg

There is not one shred of "3rd party validatable" evidence that shows Hanratty was anywhere other than in that cornfield raping VS and murdering MG.

KR,
Vic.

[Graham]

Gents,

For several reasons I haven't posted recently, but I visit this thread when I can and have to say that I can hear the distinct sound of barrells being scraped by the "Jim Is Innocent" faction.

Some time ago I asked for one definitive piece of incontrovertible evidence (or third-party validatable as Victor more accurately puts it) to prove beyond doubt that Hanratty was anywhere other than in the back seat of the Morris Minor. I'm still waiting for it.

Hanratty was convicted (fairly or unfairly, but convicted he was) partly on identification evidence and partly because he was unable to prove he was not in the car that fateful night. Simple as that.

Cheers,

Graham

[PC49]

Ah but if they used the semen-only technique then all the degraded DNA and all the DNA that isn't from an intact sperm head is removed so we'd only expect JH and MG, and surprise surprise that's exactly what they found.


And the 6 experts consulted?


Yes, the semen on VS knickers did not match Alphon so he was dismissed on those grounds.


True not enough exists to give a match using those exacting criteria, but enough existed to provide a legally-valid positive match with Hanratty.


There is not one shred of "3rd party validatable" evidence that shows Hanratty was anywhere other than in that cornfield raping VS and murdering MG.

KR,
Vic.

Please forgive my ignorance folks, but how was Gregsten's DNA sourced?

[Victor]

Please forgive my ignorance folks, but how was Gregsten's DNA sourced?

Hi PC49,

If you take a look over at the DNA thread this was discussed, and there's nothing definitive either way...

There are options of course, but that'd just be speculating.

KR,
Vic.

[Victor]

Gents,

For several reasons I haven't posted recently, but I visit this thread when I can and have to say that I can hear the distinct sound of barrells being scraped by the "Jim Is Innocent" faction.

Some time ago I asked for one definitive piece of incontrovertible evidence (or third-party validatable as Victor more accurately puts it) to prove beyond doubt that Hanratty was anywhere other than in the back seat of the Morris Minor. I'm still waiting for it.

Hanratty was convicted (fairly or unfairly, but convicted he was) partly on identification evidence and partly because he was unable to prove he was not in the car that fateful night. Simple as that.

Cheers,

Graham

Hi Graham,

Nice to see you back again.

I'd just like to state that it was Reg who first used the term "3rd party validatable" in post #2250 which is why I put it in quotes. He uses it as an argument to dismiss the LCN evidence, but not to dismiss all the other evidence which is why I put it exactly that way.

KR,
Vic.

[reg1965]

Gents,

For several reasons I haven't posted recently, but I visit this thread when I can and have to say that I can hear the distinct sound of barrells being scraped by the "Jim Is Innocent" faction.

Some time ago I asked for one definitive piece of incontrovertible evidence (or third-party validatable as Victor more accurately puts it) to prove beyond doubt that Hanratty was anywhere other than in the back seat of the Morris Minor. I'm still waiting for it.

Hanratty was convicted (fairly or unfairly, but convicted he was) partly on identification evidence and partly because he was unable to prove he was not in the car that fateful night. Simple as that.

Cheers,

Graham

You're never ever going to get any evidence that is absolutely beyond doubt in most criminal cases. That is why evidence that is beyond any reasonable doubt is acceptable. I think that you will find that 11 witnesses testimony in Rhyl taken together provides this.
You like batting on a flat wicket all the time where any bouncers can be easily defended by calling for one piece of incontravertible evidence that you know doesn't exist one way or the other.
Hanratty didn't have to prove he wasn't in the cornfield that evening. It was his (not fully investigated) alibi that wasn't believed. The defendent doesn't even have to say a word.

[Victor]

You're never ever going to get any evidence that is absolutely beyond doubt in most criminal cases. That is why evidence that is beyond any reasonable doubt is acceptable. I think that you will find that 11 witnesses testimony in Rhyl taken together provides this.
You like batting on a flat wicket all the time where any bouncers can be easily defended by calling for one piece of incontravertible evidence that you know doesn't exist one way or the other.
Hanratty didn't have to prove he wasn't in the cornfield that evening. It was his (not fully investigated) alibi that wasn't believed. The defendent doesn't even have to say a word.

Hang on, Hanratty's first alibi evidence was fully investigated and disproved, so he throws out a second. It's no wonder it was then viewed as lacking credibility.

KR,
Vic.

[JIMBOW]

Hi Jim
Why then, after Alphon had not been picked out by VS, did the old bill withhold so much vital evidence regarding the cars mileage and other sightings, interviews with VS regarding identification, the Kerr notes, withholding of Rhyl witness names and so on in the trial of JH. They also fabricated their interview notes with JH to include stuff like 'kip'.
Reg

Hi Reg,

Well, I certainly am not naive enough to imagine there are no bent coppers around but I feel that when you examine D.S. Acott's overall career in the Flying Squad and Murder Squad, it's a pretty impressive one, including the capture of police murderer Gunter Padola and the Worthing bank guard killer Victor Terry. Admittedly in Padola's case there were claims of police brutality during the apprehension but they could hardly have been expected to say 'I say, old boy, would you mind awfully giving us a moment of your time and dropping down to Chelsea cop shop with us - just when you're ready, of course'. I just can't see Acott as having stitched JH up although I admit that he should certainly have been more forthcoming about the Rhyl witnesses and the car mileage.

On those two latter points, though, there's considerable room for interpretation/misinterpretation. Mike Gregsten could have filled the car up with petrol at any time of the day that Tuesday (in fact, do we even know that he filled it up at all, or partly fill it or what?). Sightings of the car extended as far north as Glasgow and most seem quite unreliable. So too do most of the Rhyl witnesses, many of whom were quite vague, saying things like 'might have been', 'looked quite like' etc. I think the best one is the chap who claimed to have been approached by a guy wanting to sell a watch (Trevor Dutton, was it?). He had documentary evidence (stamp in his cheque-book or some such) of the date in question.

Regards,
Jim

[alan]

Gents,

For several reasons I haven't posted recently, but I visit this thread when I can and have to say that I can hear the distinct sound of barrells being scraped by the "Jim Is Innocent" faction.

Some time ago I asked for one definitive piece of incontrovertible evidence (or third-party validatable as Victor more accurately puts it) to prove beyond doubt that Hanratty was anywhere other than in the back seat of the Morris Minor. I'm still waiting for it.

Hanratty was convicted (fairly or unfairly, but convicted he was) partly on identification evidence and partly because he was unable to prove he was not in the car that fateful night. Simple as that.

Cheers,

Graham

Dear Graham,

An interesting and bold statement.

I assume that you take the view that both Liverpool and Rhyl are just pure fabrication and that the alleged trip to Paddington was in fact the intention and JH was really in the Slough area all the time.

That thought obviously flies in the face of Russel, Foot and Wolfenden and to be frank I have never looked at it in such simplistic terms.

Thank you,

Alan

[reg1965]

Ah but if they used the semen-only technique then all the degraded DNA and all the DNA that isn't from an intact sperm head is removed so we'd only expect JH and MG, and surprise surprise that's exactly what they found.

Pure conjecture. Plus if it was used why wasn't anything picked up in 1995 when the tests where inconclusive. You can't have it both ways. LCN was used in 1997 and a mixed profile would have been obtained. The rfu levels would have been so low so as to make allele peaks from one profile undecipherable from another. Subtracting known profiles doesn't help either because you then remove possible matches to other profiles and the known profile may be matched against alleles from other profiles in the mix. It is just not possible to use LCN to determine a single profile. Yours, mine and any Tom, Dick and Harry's DNA could be in there for all we know! It is plain that it is just a guess that anybody's DNA was there that the FSS said were and similarly for those they said were not.

And the 6 experts consulted?

Only one from the appelant. LCN experts all worked for the FSS at that time!

Yes, the semen on VS knickers did not match Alphon so he was dismissed on those grounds.

See the first point.

True not enough exists to give a match using those exacting criteria, but enough existed to provide a legally-valid positive match with Hanratty.

See the first point.

There is not one shred of "3rd party validatable" evidence that shows Hanratty was anywhere other than in that cornfield raping VS and murdering MG.

The murder and rape happened at Deadman's Hill, a layby on the A6 near Clophill, Bedfordshire and not in a cornfield! I don't know where you got this information...it wasn't Mr Miller was it.

The Rhyl alibi has been validated by at least 11 3rd Parties. VS's testimony has not been shown to be validated by anyone else. The Redbridge witnesses who picked out JH were both wrong because the car was not there at that time. Both the cars mileage and contradictory sightings of it's abandonment in Avondale Crescent prove this to be so.


We are all entitled to our opinions but I feel that it is becoming a waste of time arguing with you mate. I have given you all the information you need to find out all about LCN DNA but you are plainly not interested in looking at the facts. You have swallowed the official judgement hook, line and sinker (like johnl) and are trying to find loopholes out of the LCN net. I am not at all convinced by any of your arguments on the DNA evidence.
JamesDean, DM and jimarylin have not posted on the other thread for well over 2 weeks. I think that that are bored arguing the toss with you too.

I hope this thread continues to elicit the little gems of information that it has done right from the start, both for and against Hanratty. Extremely entrenched views are becoming quite apparent; although quite a few newbies have come forward recently and I hope that their enthusiasm will carry the thread forward. New blood is always welcomed.

Reg

[JIMBOW]

Dear Graham,

An interesting and bold statement.

I assume that you take the view that both Liverpool and Rhyl are just pure fabrication and that the alleged trip to Paddington was in fact the intention and JH was really in the Slough area all the time.

That thought obviously flies in the face of Russel, Foot and Wolfenden and to be frank I have never looked at it in such simplistic terms.

Thank you,

Alan

Alan, I've always wondered why everyone seems to assume that Hanratty went RIGHT AWAY from the Vienna to Paddington on the morning of that fateful day. Could he not perhaps have gone 'down the Rehearsal Club' or maybe indulged in what appears to have been one of his favourite pastimes with one of his lady friends (say, the one in Soho?).

He may well not have headed out Slough way until much later in the day (or, of course, as some might say - not at all).

Regards,
Jim

[reg1965]

Hang on, Hanratty's first alibi evidence was fully investigated and disproved, so he throws out a second. It's no wonder it was then viewed as lacking credibility.

KR,
Vic.

Total cobblers.
Mr Swanwick could not refute the sweetshop alibi so had to suggest it was bought. This idea is plainly ludicrous. He was left in this position because his own prosecution witness squarely placed JH in London on the 21st. The sweetshop encounter therefore had to be the Tuesday.
The changing of the alibi, although later shown to be 3rd party verifiable, was very damaging.