a6 murder

[jimarilyn]

PS To PC49: no need to quote my whole post again just to say that! And you might have a wee bit more consideration for the admin of this site who have requested us not to overuse the quote function in this way.

I think you're out of order here Caz. PC49 is relatively new to this forum and very likely unaware of any admin requests regarding overuse of the quote function.
I noticed that in your marathon post you yourself referred to a full 13 quotes from other posters. Perhaps it would have been simpler if you'd broken down your long post into say 3 or 4 smaller ones.


regards,
James

[Victor]

Hi James,

Actually it one of the rules to not over-use the quote function, and it specifically tells you to use multiple, small, relevant quotes instead of quoting a message in full.

I agree that new users should have a bit of leeway, but unless they are told they'll never know.

KR,
Vic.

[Victor]

Hi Victor,
Sorry, I'm not being pedantic but, if she wasn't sure, why pick him out?
After all, a man's life was at stake, and for someone who had recently been so close to death herself, maybe she should've taken a lot more care with her selection of the supposed offender.

Hi PC49,
Now therin lies the crux of the matter, but there are an awful lot of unknowns. We can make assumptions about them, for example in an earlier post I postulated that Acott may have egged her on into selecting someone at the first parade, and VS didn't want to let him down; or VS was (unquestionably) in a heightened emotional and mental state and somehow felt obligated to select someone.

Rightly or wrongly, I can't shrug off the persistent feeling that she was a lot more of a tougher character than portrayed, and was determined that "someone" should pay for the heinous crime against her, and her lover.

I partially agree with this, extreme emotional distress leads to unpredictability, even "tough" characters can break down, especially if they are crippled for life, and it doesn't matter how you try, you cannot rationalise unpredictability.

I don't doubt that she fervently believed and believes that the guilty party should be brought to justice.

Regarding the second attempt, if Hanratty was the only man in the line with a london accent, surely he was the one that was going to be selected anyway?
Best regards.

That's a very big "if" that I've highlighted.

To all (especially James and Reg),
We now have an entire subsection devoted to the A6 murder, so maybe it would be good if someone could start a thread where, for example, the Rhyl witnesses could be discussed; or contemporary newspaper articles; and maybe the DNA thread could be ressurected as this thread is getting huge, and difficult to pinpoint specific items.

KR,
Vic.

[Victor]

Some 2,000 years ago a great and innocent man was hung on a cross by the establishment of the day.

Hi James,

The above is at best a myth or legend, as there's no independant evidence for it as far as I am aware.

And if you believe the myth, the population were offered a chance to free him and selected a vicious murderer to be freed instead.

KR,
Vic.

[jimarilyn]

Not as much of a loner as has been made out ?

Hi All,

On the subject of Peter Louis Alphon the popular conception over the years has been that he was friendless and very much a loner. That may have been the case for the last decade or so but I don't believe it was the case during the 1960's.
The following newspaper article from October 4th 1961 makes extremely interesting reading.
The last paragraph is particularly revealing.....
I wonder who these friends were.


regards,
James

[PC49]

I think you're out of order here Caz. PC49 is relatively new to this forum and very likely unaware of any admin requests regarding overuse of the quote function.
I noticed that in your marathon post you yourself referred to a full 13 quotes from other posters. Perhaps it would have been simpler if you'd broken down your long post into say 3 or 4 smaller ones.


regards,
James

Thank you, James & Victor. I was genuinely unaware of the admin request, and wouldn't have disregarded it had I known. I am wet behind the ears concerning the procedures for posting etc.
Since being reprimanded by Caz, I have spent the entire afternoon standing in the naughty corner, and am hopeful for an early release in time for my evening sustenance!
The newspaper article you've posted is very interesting indeed.
Best regards.

[Victor]

Hi PC49,

The rules are here -> http://forum.casebook.org/forumdisplay.php?f=107

And there's a FAQ list here -> http://forum.casebook.org/forumdisplay.php?f=97 which has some tips for doing multi-quote messages etc.

And there's no need to stand in the naughty corner all afternoon, it's only 1 minute for every year of your age

KR,
Vic.

[PC49]

Hi PC49,

The rules are here -> http://forum.casebook.org/forumdisplay.php?f=107

And there's a FAQ list here -> http://forum.casebook.org/forumdisplay.php?f=97 which has some tips for doing multi-quote messages etc.

And there's no need to stand in the naughty corner all day, it's 1 minute for every year of your age

KR,
Vic.

Cheers Victor - much appreciated, thank you.
Geez, if that rule applies I'm gonna be stuck in that pesky corner all over the weekend!
Best regards

[Victor]

Assuming that Hanratty did murder Michael Gregsten and rape Valerie Storie, is there anything in his background, as far as it is known, which suggests that he was capable of rape and murder? I am aware that he had comitted other offences prior to the A6 murder, but had he, for example, ever been previously linked with sexual offences or serious assault?

Hi Sherlock,

Technically Hanratty having sex with Carole France whilst she was underage is statutory rape.

So yes, he's been linked with a serious sexual offence.

KR,
Vic.

[Victor]

Re. my post (2529) of November 1st ( took me a while to locate this post)

Hi James,

If you click on the little ">" icon next to your name in the header of the quote box it'll jump straight to the post that's been quoted.

KR,
Vic.

[caz]

Evening All,

Hi PC49,

My mistake. I assumed that anyone who could find their own way to the A6 murder site, located in ‘Shades of Whitechapel’, would have no trouble seeing the large ‘Read This First!’ sign. Not my fault though, if you saw it and chose not to follow the instruction.

Your question is completely hypothetical, as blood type frequency in the UK for Group O is approximately 40% anyway. Therefore your question isn't one that can be answered, as you well know.

I asked the question mainly to try and encourage people to think through their various theories for Hanratty being set up, and identify potential flaws.

For example, when he first came into view as a potential suspect, nobody would have known that he had the right blood group and no verifiable alibi. It could so easily have gone pear-shaped for anyone trying to set up an innocent man. All Hanratty needed was the slightly less common blood group A, and a signature on a stupid b and b register, and the most crooked cop in the land would have had his job cut out making the evidence fit. It may be completely hypothetical, but then so is the idea of his innocence. It’s too late for him to be presumed innocent. If you can’t prove it, his conviction remains intact and there’s nothing you or I can do about it.

Certainly nobody could have predicted that forty years later both the hankie round the gun, and the knickers worn by the rape victim, would oblige with DNA consistent with Hanratty, if he was set up from the start by whoever is supposed to have planted the first evidence against him.

The different hoops people have to jump through to get round the DNA findings are entertaining, but I'm glad I'm only spectating and not performing:

Alphon's DNA on the knickers must have degraded beyond identification, while Hanratty's semen got there via a contamination event and didn't degrade completely.

If that doesn't sound likely enough, keep the contamination event but fall back on:

Alphon's semen must all have been deposited on the part of the garment thrown away.

If that fails to convince everyone, try:

Alphon's DNA could have been on the remaining fragment but misidentified as Hanratty's - which would then beg the question how a match could have been obtained with the DNA from the hankie. Or was that Alphon's too?

If all else fails, clutch at the last straw:

All DNA from 1961 would have degraded, so the three profiles obtained from knickers and hankie combined must have come from people handling the evidence at a later date, but were all misidentified due to guesswork.

One wonders why the establishment went to the enormous trouble and expense of exhuming Hanratty's body if his DNA could be pulled out of the hat without even trying, and the wool pulled so easily over enough eyes to sail through the appeal.

Of course, it still wouldn't explain how male DNA from the hankie managed to match male DNA from the knickers, and it wouldn't work at all if the analysis of the latter was done after successfully isolating the semen content.

Is faith really worth having if it isn't tested? Those who have absolute faith in Hanratty's innocence or Alphon's guilt should welcome the toughest test and not fear the most searching questions - ditto with those of us who strongly suspect that a rapist and killer was taken out of society when they convicted Hanratty.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

I have to say I find your post very patronising indeed ( now, now, James and PC49 you mustn't be taken in by Peter's false confessions, he was only doing it for publicity and attention.....take no heed of all that silly evidence that points to him.... Caroline knows best. There's no such thing as a true confession, there are only false ones)

Hi James,

Well I have to say your debating tactics do you very little credit. Have I claimed there is no such thing as a true confession, only false ones? No. Do I believe it? No, of course not. Just as you don’t believe everything anyone tells you. Quite right too.

So why are you so prepared to make an exception with Alphon and believe whatever he tells you - a man who at best lied through his teeth about a crime he did not commit, and at worst is a rapist and murderer whose lies supposedly sent an innocent man to his death?

You said you were using ‘Alphon’s own words’ to support your accusations against him, as if I was supposed to be impressed. Surely you must be able to highlight something from ‘all that silly evidence that points to him’ that improves on Alphon’s lamentable effort to incriminate himself over the fingerprint issue. The bones of the argument appear to be something like this:

1) Hanratty’s prints were not found in the car so he should not have been convicted.

2) Alphon’s prints were not found in the car so he should have been convicted - because he knew they would not be found. How could he have known that unless he had used gloves, just as he claimed?

Well call me contrary Mary, but wouldn’t he have been reasonably confident if he’d never been near the car in the first place?

Did you pick this out as one of Alphon’s more successful attempts to condemn himself with his own words? Or can things only get better? Are you building up slowly to the one that proves (ooh yes, here we go) beyond reasonable doubt that he knew too much not to have been the gunman? If so, don’t leave it too long, will you? I might die of excitement.

You… place too much faith in our "crafty establishment" and all their works and utterances. They would never dream of misleading the public would they ? They never have hidden agendas do they ? No, not our glorious establishment. Our glorious establishment is infallible, there's no way an innocent man can ever be executed, external forces would somehow come into play and intervene to prevent this. All establishments are infallible. Try telling that to the millions of innocent people executed by the Nazis in Auschwitz, Dachau and all the other extermination camps…

Now you are just being silly.

You couldn’t possibly be more wrong if you tried. But I don’t have to defend myself against such an obviously distorted picture. You can’t have read any of my views on appalling cases like Evans, Bentley or Stagg, or the mothers so cruelly convicted of murder after losing their babies to cot death. Did you even bother to read my recent post describing my own experience of jury service? And shouldn’t you at least make a stab at clearing Hanratty of rape and murder first, before rounding up all of Hitler’s innocent victims and attempting to put them on some kind of par with this scumbag?

One question for you before I start my weekend: if the ‘establishment’ had found Alphon’s DNA and not Hanratty’s, would you now be rejecting any possibility of contamination and rejoicing that justice had finally been done? Or would you still be seeking to compare our legal system with Hitler’s brand of justice and going along with the claims that anyone who trusts DNA analysis needs to get out more?

I hope you will be honest enough to give yourself a straight answer, even if you can’t give me one.

Love,

Caz
X

[reg1965]

oooppp the goooonnneerrsss!

[jimarilyn]

So why are you so prepared to make an exception with Alphon and believe whatever he tells you - a man who at best lied through his teeth about a crime he did not commit, and at worst is a rapist and murderer whose lies supposedly sent an innocent man to his death?

Where did I say that I believed whatever Alphon tells me (actually he's never spoken a word to me ). Alphon, being a very crafty and intelligent bloke, was ultra careful in his confessions to include demonstrably untrue statements. A cunning move. His first public confession (Paris, May 1967) to Europe's press was very carefully planned and timed. Capital punishment in Britain was a thing of the past and no longer posed a danger or threat to his cherished life.*Jean Justice, Frank Justice and Jeremy Fox befriended Alphon and all three spent many an hour in his company getting to know him and what made him tick. Their own experience of him gradually convinced all three that here was the real killer. Jean Justice, suspecting that Alphon was the real murderer slowly gained Alphon's confidence and elicited a confession from him. Becoming ever more convinced of the validity of his confession he began taping (without the unsuspecting Alphon's knowledge) many telephone conversations that occurred between the two.These many tape recordings have never been made public but they must have been of such a nature that they convinced the two Justice brothers, Jeremy Fox, Paul Foot and others who heard them of their veracity.[/QUOTE]You said you were using ‘Alphon’s own words’ to support your accusations against him, as if I was supposed to be impressed. Surely you must be able to highlight something from ‘all that silly evidence that points to him’ that improves on Alphon’s lamentable effort to incriminate himself over the fingerprint issue. [/QUOTE]Frankly my dear, I couldn't give a darn (I can't sew) about trying to impress you. That wasn't my intention anyway. I seriously doubt if Omlor, myself or anyone else could impress the very hard to please Caz.As for highlighting something from all "that silly evidence"* there's so much I just wouldn't know where to start.1) Hanratty’s prints were not found in the car so he should not have been convicted. 2) Alphon’s prints were not found in the car so he should have been convicted - because he knew they would not be found. How could he have known that unless he had used gloves, just as he claimed?Well call me contrary Mary, but wouldn’t he have been reasonably confident if he’d never been near the car in the first place? Did you pick this out as one of Alphon’s more successful attempts to condemn himself with his own words? Or can things only get better? Are you building up slowly to the one that proves (ooh yes, here we go) beyond reasonable doubt that he knew too much not to have been the gunman? If so, don’t leave it too long, will you? I might die of excitement. Now you are just being silly. You couldn’t possibly be more wrong if you tried. But I don’t have to defend myself against such an obviously distorted picture. You can’t have read any of my views on appalling cases like Evans, Bentley or Stagg, or the mothers so cruelly convicted of murder after losing their babies to cot death. Did you even bother to read my recent post describing my own experience of jury service? And shouldn’t you at least make a stab at clearing Hanratty of rape and murder first, before rounding up all of Hitler’s innocent victims and attempting to put them on some kind of par with this scumbag? One question for you before I start my weekend: if the ‘establishment’ had found Alphon’s DNA and not Hanratty’s, would you now be rejecting any possibility of contamination and rejoicing that justice had finally been done? Or would you still be seeking to compare our legal system with Hitler’s brand of justice and going along with the claims that anyone who trusts DNA analysis needs to get out more? I hope you will be honest enough to give yourself a straight answer, even if you can’t give me one. Love,CazX[/QUOTE]

[jimarilyn]

Don't know what went wrong with that post. Gremlins in the works no doubt.
Didn't even press the submit button