a6 murder

[jimarilyn]

Hi James,

In common with the Ripper investigation there are large number of press reports, some of which are wildly innaccurate.

You have made an assumption that "[the Press] were kept reliably informed (by the police)" and extrapolated that to the equivalent of the press are always correct.

This article contains demonstrable errors, has no acknowledged source and must therfore be taken with a large pinch of salt... or is largely irrelevant.

KR,
Vic.

Hi Victor,

As your namesake Victor Mildew may have said...."I don't believe it ...!"

Looks like you've had a dictionary for breakfast instead of your trusted cornflakes.
I wouldn't know how to EXTRAPOLATE if I tried.
No wonder Reg is exasperated with some of your posts.
Methinks you need to re-read carefully that Mirror article, perhaps you believe they were inventing what was contained therein ?
I hope you make a full recovery from whatever it is you're suffering from


James

[Victor]

Hi James,

Do you really not believe that the press sometimes gets it wrong?
Or that they don't exaggerate certain aspects to make a mundane report newsworthy?

I'm not saying they invented it, just that they gilded the lily, in common with the majority of newspaper articles. And therefore it cannot be read as gospel.

You might not know what extrapolate means, but that doesn't mean that you don't do it.

I do have a bit of a cold at the moment so thank you for your concern.

KR,
Vic.

[Joseph]

...more things in heaven and earth.....

Good evening everybody,

Hypothetical scenario ?

A young man goes to his execution protesting his innocence to the last.
A grave miscarriage of justice has occurred on planet earth.
Does Heaven allow such things or does it intervene in some mysterious way ?
Is the ghost of James Hanratty crying out for justice and truth ?
Influencing believers in his cause to fight his corner.
Does his spirit permeate this particular thread in some way ?


James Hanratty's lawyer, Michael Sherrard, in the trial at Bedford alluded to a line in Shakespeare's play Hamlet .."is there not something rotten in the state of Denmark".
Keeping with Hamlet, elsewhere in the play Hamlet says ( hinting and referring to his interaction with the ghost of his dead father ) to Horatio "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.................



peace and best wishes,

Joseph

[Victor]

Hypothetical scenario ?

A young man goes to his execution protesting his innocence to the last.
A grave miscarriage of justice has occurred on planet earth.
Does Heaven allow such things or does it intervene in some mysterious way ?
Is the ghost of James Hanratty crying out for justice and truth ?
Influencing believers in his cause to fight his corner.
Does his spirit permeate this particular thread in some way ?

Hi Joseph,

Why the ghost of Hanratty but not the ghost of Gregsten? He seems a much more likely candidate than the lying, cheating, thieving scumbag Hanratty, although MG is an adulterous cheat too.

KR,
Vic.

[reg1965]

Victor

Your post #2599.
Let he who is without sin cast the first stone. (attributed to a Jewish communist revolutionary c30AD)

Your post #2590
I am sorry if you consider 'you are deaf', 'pal' and 'sunshine' to be a form of bullying via verbal abuse. Get a life for goodness sake man!

Have you read all of the 2 articles that Dupplin Muir linked to in his post #111 on the other thread?

namely:-

http://www.scientific.org/tutorials/articles/riley/riley.html

http://www.aclu.org/privacy/biotech/asset_upload_file971_29096.pdf

From what you have said recently about biased information I am not sure whether you have. But this is the crux isn't it? You don't want to read or accept anything that contradicts your nonsensical views. You flatly refuse to identify the said biased articles saying and I quote "The links are all there, if you can't work out the bias for yourself then there's no point me wasting my time doing it for you." What sort of argument is that? It sounds like a 12 year old in the playground who is taking his football home. Do grow up!

I again state for certain that you do not understand LCN DNA, the technique used by the respondent in the appeal of 2002 despite your protestations. Also you have brought nothing new to the debate over the A6 Murder. In fact your first post on this thread (#878) was over the DNA when you thought that MG's DNA was found; which you got wrong. Where did you get that from? The appeal judgement only assumed that MG's DNA was there. I had to repoint you to the judgement document in my post #1512! You then misinterpreted that in your post #1514 by again saying that MG's DNA had been found, rather that the '"attributed" which was actually in the document. Unbelievable. In fact Caz (#1680) and Johnl (#1540) first posted here beacuse of the DNA evidence!

Reg

[PC49]

Hi Joseph,

Why the ghost of Hanratty but not the ghost of Gregsten? He seems a much more likely candidate than the lying, cheating, thieving scumbag Hanratty, although MG is an adulterous cheat too.

KR,
Vic.

You seem to be so absolutely certain that Hanratty was guilty. Is this solely based on the DNA "result" announced at the 2002 Appeal?
Can we please consider an alternative scenario? What if the Appeal had concluded that the DNA findings did not implicate Hanratty?
Would the case have been re-opened?
Would the original suspect have been re-investigated?
Would Valerie Storie have been questioned further about her avowed certainty that she had eventually got "the right man" and not another innocent party?
Would the "bought" sweetshop alibi have been returned for a full refund?
Would the numerous Rhyl witnesses suddenly all become genuine?
etc, etc, etc........................
Rightly or wrongly, I am not automatically taken in by being spoon-fed decisions, proclamations or so-called findings announced by this country's establishment.
Whatever you may say to the contrary, I firmly believe that the whole issue stinks, and always has done. I remain extremely sceptical about the convenient blanket, that was thrown over the case, via the 2002 Appeal.
Regards.

[jimarilyn]

You seem to be so absolutely certain that Hanratty was guilty. Is this solely based on the DNA "result" announced at the 2002 Appeal?
Can we please consider an alternative scenario? What if the Appeal had concluded that the DNA findings did not implicate Hanratty?
Would the case have been re-opened?
Would the original suspect have been re-investigated?
Would Valerie Storie have been questioned further about her avowed certainty that she had eventually got "the right man" and not another innocent party?
Would the "bought" sweetshop alibi have been returned for a full refund?
Would the numerous Rhyl witnesses suddenly all become genuine?
etc, etc, etc........................
Rightly or wrongly, I am not automatically taken in by being spoon-fed decisions, proclamations or so-called findings announced by this country's establishment.
Whatever you may say to the contrary, I firmly believe that the whole issue stinks, and always has done. I remain extremely sceptical about the convenient blanket, that was thrown over the case, via the 2002 Appeal.
Regards.

Hi PC49,

Along with I suspect a lot of other people, I endorse everything you say in your fine post.
Something stinks to high heaven about this case, which I believe is why it hasn't been allowed to die after 47 years.
So very much convincing and persuasive evidence points to James Hanratty's innocence for me to take as gospel the very convenient DNA findings of 2002.
I believe the Establishment wanted closure in this case, the Hanratty family and their supporters must have been a huge thorn in it's side for 4 decades. Time after time they were shamefully fobbed off by Labour and Tory governments in their quest for a full and totally independent inquiry.

Mr and Mrs Hanratty and their three sons, Michael, Peter and Richard knew James inside out and what he was and wasn't capable of doing. They attended his trial, they witnessed his behaviour in court and listened to his long testimony in the witness-box. They visited him in prison, got up close and personal with him in there and corresponded with him by mail. During all this various interaction with him I'm convinced they would have detected any tell-tale signs of lying or deceit.


regards,
James

[PC49]

Hi PC49,

Along with I suspect a lot of other people, I endorse everything you say in your fine post.
Something stinks to high heaven about this case, which I believe is why it hasn't been allowed to die after 47 years.
So very much convincing and persuasive evidence points to James Hanratty's innocence for me to take as gospel the very convenient DNA findings of 2002.
I believe the Establishment wanted closure in this case, the Hanratty family and their supporters must have been a huge thorn in it's side for 4 decades. Time after time they were shamefully fobbed off by Labour and Tory governments in their quest for a full and totally independent inquiry.

Mr and Mrs Hanratty and their three sons, Michael, Peter and Richard knew James inside out and what he was and wasn't capable of doing. They attended his trial, they witnessed his behaviour in court and listened to his long testimony in the witness-box. They visited him in prison, got up close and personal with him in there and corresponded with him by mail. During all this various interaction with him I'm convinced they would have detected any tell-tale signs of lying or deceit.


regards,
James

Very well put, James.
I entirely agree that the Hanratty family would not have made it their life's vocation to get at the truth, if they had any doubts whatsoever about James' innocence.
It's all very well certain theories being put forward to the effect that he went into total denial of the crime - well, he would have done exactly that as an innocent man.
Amongst all the millions of words spoken about this case, one keeps sticking in my mind, and that was uttered by Alphon when he declared that Hanratty was "expendable." I believe that the view still persists to this very day, only in a much wider field than that enclosed around the very fortunate Peter Louis Alphon.
Best regards,
PC49

[jimarilyn]

Amongst all the millions of words spoken about this case, one keeps sticking in my mind, and that was uttered by Alphon when he declared that Hanratty was "expendable." I believe that the view still persists to this very day, only in a much wider field than that enclosed around the very fortunate Peter Louis Alphon.

Hi PC49,

Further to this, Alphon often remarked that the police/authorities acted all along as though they knew he was the murderer but just weren't prepared to do anything about it. No matter what he did he always received preferential treatment at the hands of the courts.
Mrs Meike Dalal identified Alphon as the man who perpetrated the truly horrendous and brutal attack on her in her own home yet when the case came to court at Mortlake the magistrates dismissed the charge against him and he was awarded 50 guineas in costs. Truly unbelievable.

regards,
James

[Tony]

I'm back.

Hello everyone,

I’ve been away for a couple of weeks and have been catching up on the thread this day and I must say there has been some good stuff to read.
Unlike Graham I do not think the Jimdidn’tdoitites are scraping the barrel; quite the opposite. Some very enlightening information has been gathered and with your permissions I will add my own contributions tomorrow.
A couple of you seem concerned about the dialogue between Reg and Victor but I’m sure they respect each other’s opinions at the end of the day and, well, that’s just how they react to each other. I don’t think they take the same tone with anyone else and both are very smart guys in my opinion. I have been on the wrong end of Vic’s posts at times but he has shown me the utmost of respect when having a go at me. Fair play to him and good luck to both of them.

I hope everyone is happy and well.

Tony.

[Victor]

Hi Tony, welcome back.
Thank you for the compliments, I really appreciate it, and I hope that I've never disrespected anyone without provocation. I certainly enjoy heated debate and I certainly appreciate that at times you have to agree to disagree!

Hi Reg,
I have read those articles posted by DM on the other thread, as that is precisely where I formed the information for the opinion that it must have been a semen only DNA analysis, hence validating the "any contamination would have to be semen" comment from the judgment.

I find it hard to accept your repeated comments about the LCN technique, but that still doesn't get round the plain fact that the DNA evidence and VS testimony tally and independantly validate eachother, whereas none of the so-called "Rhyl witnesses" have any independant validation unless you can show that 2 of the witnesses saw eachother and JH, otherwise they are separate identification witnesses.

Secondly, it has not been established that MG's DNA was not found, the wording of the judgment implies that it was, so I haven't got that wrong.

Thirdly, I think you'll find that my first post was on the pre-crash A6 thread and is probably repeated in the first couple of posts if you want to check.

You seem to be so absolutely certain that Hanratty was guilty. Is this solely based on the DNA "result" announced at the 2002 Appeal?

Hi PC49,
As I stated above, the DNA result convinced me that VS identification and account were legitimate, something which I had previously doubted, so no it is not solely based on the DNA.

Would the "bought" sweetshop alibi have been returned for a full refund?

I find the above quote extremely perplexing. You wander off into fantasyland suggestiong a situation that didn't occur, and then ask about a real-life event that would have happened differently. The only logical question is "Could Mrs Dinwoodie have been mistaken and misidentified someone else as JH?". The answer to that has to be "Yes it is entirely possible she was mistaken".

I don't see the value of considering the alternative fantasy scenario you suggest, but if you must there are actual examples, such as Stefan Kiszko, the Carl Bridgewater guys, Derek Bentley, etc.

Rightly or wrongly, I am not automatically taken in by being spoon-fed decisions, proclamations or so-called findings announced by this country's establishment.

All I can conclude from the above is that you are a conspiracy theorist and will question the establishment whenever they give evidence supportting a position you disagree with. I can only respond with a question Caz positted many weeks back... "What evidence would convince you of JH's guilt?"

KR,
Vic.

[jimarilyn]

Welcome back

Hi Tony,

Welcome back. I hope you enjoyed your fortnight break. I look forward with anticipation to reading your future contributions to the thread. Needless to say your stimulating posts are valued highly and always provide food for thought.

regards,
James


PS Good luck to the Owls at Blackpool tonight. I wonder if the Stevonia cafe is still there ?
Good luck to the Gunners too Reg.
Good luck to Villareal too !

[jimarilyn]

Hi PC49,As I stated above, the DNA result convinced me that VS identification and account were legitimate, something which I had previously doubted, so no it is not solely based on the DNA.

I must say Victor that I'm shocked to read that until the very debatable DNA findings of 2002 you actually doubted Valerie Storie's evidence. Could you expand upon this by any chance, as you always come across in your posts as Miss Storie's champion ?
I'm intrigued as to what exactly it was about Miss Storie that you didn't believe.

regards,
James

[caz]

Hi Folks!

Sorry I've been a wafer so long (as the biscuit said to his missus).

I have just read through all the posts since my last visit and have been taking notes - so watch out on the morrow you 'orrible lot. Caz will have her say.

Lots of love,

Mrs Jimdiditite
XXX

[jimarilyn]

Hi Folks!

Sorry I've been a wafer so long (as the biscuit said to his missus).

I have just read through all the posts since my last visit and have been taking notes - so watch out on the morrow you 'orrible lot. Caz will have her say.

Lots of love,

Mrs Jimdiditite
XXX

As long as you don't slice OUR noses off or treat us like tOM LORd