a6 murder

[jimarilyn]

Here's how it should have looked........

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 very 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.

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’

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" well there's so much I just wouldn't know where to start.

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

Well I can only echo PC49's thoughts (post 2624). In this instance your question is not only hypothetical but ridiculous too and undeserving of any kind of reply.

One thing that truly baffles me is why you always sign off with "love, Caz" when the contents of your posts are often caustic and border on sarcasm. Maybe you can explain.

Yours bewilderedly,
James


PS. How does your garden grow by the way ?

[reg1965]

Hi James
You have read Caz's nonsensical arguments about the DNA on the other thread and should not be suprised by anything she posts.
She knows nothing about DNA but uses its findings in the appeal as a cloak to try to demolish other's points of view.

Hanratty certainly did not do it and as you say Alphon is bookies favourite as the guilty party.

Cheers mate
Reg

[jimarilyn]

Hi James
You have read Caz's nonsensical arguments about the DNA on the other thread and should not be suprised by anything she posts.
She knows nothing about DNA but uses its findings in the appeal as a cloak to try to demolish other's points of view.

Hanratty certainly did not do it and as you say Alphon is bookies favourite as the guilty party.

Cheers mate
Reg

Hi Reg,

No I'm not at all surprised. Par for the course I'd say. I'm glad I'm not the only person who feels this way.

I feel before he shuffles off this mortal coil that Mr. Alphon will surprise a lot of people by producing a dynamite piece of evidence proving that he was who he confessed to be.
Here's hoping the authorities/police don't get there first !

regards,
James

[Victor]

Hi James and Reg,

What exactly about Caz's arguments is "nonsensical"?

And I for one am still waiting to hear your answer to the question she posed months ago - Assume for a moment that Hanratty did it, "What evidence would prove that he did it?"

KR,
Vic.

[reg1965]

Hi James and Reg,

What exactly about Caz's arguments is "nonsensical"?

And I for one am still waiting to hear your answer to the question she posed months ago - Assume for a moment that Hanratty did it, "What evidence would prove that he did it?"

KR,
Vic.

I got fed up of answering her posts ages ago. I am not starting again now.

[Victor]

I got fed up of answering her posts ages ago. I am not starting again now.

And the 2nd question?

And that's the usual dismissive "She doesn't agree with me therefore she's wrong" arrogant response. It's also quite hypocritical considering what you said when I couldn't be bothered to point out the bias in the LCN links provided.

[Victor]

Alphon, being a very crafty and intelligent bloke, was ultra careful in his confessions to include demonstrably untrue statements. A very 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.

Hi James,

That argument can be used to support both sides - he could admit his guilt because he could no longer be hanged AND he could try and get as much money from it as possible by falsely confessing because there was no danger of him being hanged.

KR,
Vic.

[simon]

Am I the only person who's become utterly confused in recent months ? My own fascination with the case is entirely based on the 'Sidney Tafler lookalike' incident, which - some of you may remember - convinced me that Alphon must have had an involvement. I was (partly) convinced that this was a devious ploy by Foot and co to enlist support for their cause. I've now become increasingly baffled by all the pro and anti Hanratty views, and I genuinely don't know whether to believe the DNA or not. In short, I'm lost ! I tend to the view that JH probably did it. But if someone can assure me that someone who looked like Mr Tafler was seen in the vicinity of the murder a few days before the event, then I'm right back to thinking that Alphon must have been involved.

[simon]

Let me make that more clear. I was partly PERSUADED by other posters that the 'Tafler' sighting was a ploy by Foot and co. But who am I to believe ?

[Limehouse]

Am I the only person who's become utterly confused in recent months ? My own fascination with the case is entirely based on the 'Sidney Tafler lookalike' incident, which - some of you may remember - convinced me that Alphon must have had an involvement. I was (partly) convinced that this was a devious ploy by Foot and co to enlist support for their cause. I've now become increasingly baffled by all the pro and anti Hanratty views, and I genuinely don't know whether to believe the DNA or not. In short, I'm lost ! I tend to the view that JH probably did it. But if someone can assure me that someone who looked like Mr Tafler was seen in the vicinity of the murder a few days before the event, then I'm right back to thinking that Alphon must have been involved.

Hi Simon,

Like you, I have been 'on the fence' over the likely guilt of Hanratty. I used to be 100% convinced that Hanratty was innocent but I've never been fully convinced that Alphon was guilty.

The DNA eveidence failed to convince me of Hanratty's guilt, but exchanging posts with people who have more memory and knowledge of the crime than me has helped to push me more towards the 'Hanratty was guilty' school.

Re the sighting of the Tafler look-a-like, I beleive someone came forward and testified (or made a statement to a newspaper maybe) that they had seen a man who looked like Tafler (apparently Alphon) in the area of the murder on the same day or the day before. This does not convince me either way.

What does bother me is that no on saw Hanratty in the vicinity or on the outward journey. There is nothing much that places Hanratty (or anyone else) at the murder scene except for the evidence found external to the murder scene (gun and cartidges). The DNA doesn't even place Hanratty at the murder scene because it wasn't found at the scene itself but on garments stored together for 40 odd years after the event.

What we do know about Hanratty is that he was a habitual criminal who never earned any remission when in prison because of his behaviour. We know he was a man who made no real effort to reform his behaviour ecven when handed a good opportunity to do so by his father. We also know he was a man who could not, and did not take responsibility for his own behaviour. This does not point to a murderer, but it does point to someone with a personality disorder. In his favour, Hanratty did not have any convictions for violence or sexual crimes and he gave a good account of himself in the dock in terms of admitting that he earned his crust dishonestly, but was not predisposed to violence or sexually deviant behaviour.

It is all very perplexing. Something is amiss, but I am not at all convinced it was Alphon in the car that night.

[reg1965]

And the 2nd question?

And that's the usual dismissive "She doesn't agree with me therefore she's wrong" arrogant response. It's also quite hypocritical considering what you said when I couldn't be bothered to point out the bias in the LCN links provided.

As I said before

I got fed up of answering her posts ages ago. I am not starting again now.

All I seem to do with you is repeat myself time and again....and anyway what has it got to do with you who I answer or not.

Anyway about the bias statement. You made a sweeping counter statement and then refused to back it up....nothing to do with me matey boy (oops verbal abuse coming on!!)

[jimarilyn]

As I said before

I got fed up of answering her posts ages ago. I am not starting again now.

All I seem to do with you is repeat myself time and again....and anyway what has it got to do with you who I answer or not.

Anyway about the bias statement. You made a sweeping counter statement and then refused to back it up....nothing to do with me matey boy (oops verbal abuse coming on!!)

Well put Reg, I can identify with what you say. I too sometimes find myself in a position, reluctantly I might add, of having to repeat myself in order to get what I consider an important point across.
The thread's gone quiet again for some reason, perhaps due to the run-up to Christmas. Here's hoping it picks up........

That was a great win against Chelsea by the way. I'm a big admirer of the football Wenger has the Gunners playing. I wish the 'Pool would return to those days when we played exciting and attractive football. We might be top of the league but that won't last long if we continue playing the way we're doing at present, alas.


regards,
James

[reg1965]

Well put Reg, I can identify with what you say. I too sometimes find myself in a position, reluctantly I might add, of having to repeat myself in order to get what I consider an important point across.
The thread's gone quiet again for some reason, perhaps due to the run-up to Christmas. Here's hoping it picks up........

That was a great win against Chelsea by the way. I'm a big admirer of the football Wenger has the Gunners playing. I wish the 'Pool would return to those days when we played exciting and attractive football. We might be top of the league but that won't last long if we continue playing the way we're doing at present, alas.


regards,
James

Hi James
I agree, what is the point of banging one's head against some nutters wall (as Roger Waters so famously lyricized).
As for the quietness in the thread...my feeling is that before the DNA evidence seriously raised it head (I'm as guilty as anyone about that) this was just a nice little talking shop and nothing else...I don't think it will be the same again.
Guy's like Tony, especially, feel that a miscarriage of justice has been done and that Alphon is the real killer.
I'd like to investigate that avenue for a while and then see where we all are!
The young gooners were not good enough tonite. The scouse have nothing to worry about at the mo...they don't concede too many, whilst the other big 4 are dropping points.
Take care mate
Reg

[Victor]

I agree, what is the point of banging one's head against some nutters wall (as Roger Waters so famously lyricized).

That does sum up my feelings very well.

As for the quietness in the thread...my feeling is that before the DNA evidence seriously raised it head (I'm as guilty as anyone about that) this was just a nice little talking shop and nothing else...I don't think it will be the same again.

Well, we now have the opportunity of starting new threads about other aspects, so that may help.

Guy's like Tony, especially, feel that a miscarriage of justice has been done and that Alphon is the real killer.

I feel a miscarriage of justice was done from the evidence available at the trial, but fortunately later evidence proved Hanratty did it. And there are a larger number of people who believe this, including Graham and Steve.

I'd like to investigate that avenue for a while and then see where we all are!

I'm interested in hearing your thoughts on this, although there's no real evidence to back it up. I find it particularly irksome when people argue "PLA is a clever, manipulative liar, but here's a confession where he's telling the truth".

KR,
Vic.

[jimarilyn]

An imaginary and speculative scenario ???

"Good afternoon Miss Stonham, I'm Det-Sgt Jack Mackenzie and I've come here today from Scotland Yard to see if together we can compose an identikit picture of your attacker. We've been using this new technique now for almost 6 months and have had great success so far with it. We're hoping, that with your assistance, we can continue that success. First of all I have to ask you if you feel up for this task as it may take some considerable time ?

-"I think so Mr Mackenzie, I'm feeling a little better today than I was yesterday. I think it's a good time to go ahead while the image of this man's face is still fresh in my mind."

"Before we start let me just explain a few things about this new technique. It's an American invention and they've been using it successfully for some time now in the USA. We adopted it in this country in March of this year and it's proved very beneficial to us at Scotland Yard. It's certainly made our job a lot easier.
It is indeed as the name suggests a kit. A very special kit. This kit as you will soon see breaks up a full facial image up into component parts. These are hair, brows, eyes, nose, lips, chin-line with ears, and age lines, plus beard, hat and glasses where applicable. The kit contains several dozen transparent slides picturing each of these separate components with different types of contours. 500 slides in total with 5 notches on the side for different placements of each feature. Each slide will be coded with a letter for for the facial component illustrated and a figure for the particular configuration. It's a lot simpler than it sounds I can assure you.
Do you feel ready to start Miss ?"

-"Yes indeed, Mr Mackenzie, let's proceed."

"Just take your time Miss, there's no rush. Firstly what features if any about your assailant made most impression on you ?"

-"Well he had large staring eyes, brown in colour and deep set."

"That's a good place to start then. Study these slides carefully and stop me when we get to a pair that most resemble what your attacker's eyes looked like."

-"OK".

"Take your time, as I said there's no hurry."

-"I will. I know it's important that I study these slides very carefully Mr Mackenzie....................Stop there. They look very much like his eyes. Yes, they're a good match."

"Anything else make an impression on you ?"

-"His hair, he had brownish hair and it was brushed back from his forehead, slicked back with brylcreem or suchlike. Also, his hair seemed to be receding somewhat at the sides, the temples, you know."

"Ok, what about his forehead, did he have a low or high forehead as you recall ?"

- "He had quite a high forehead............Yes, much like that. Yes, the hair, eyebrows, eyes, forehead all fit. It's quite remarkable."

"What about his nose and ears, can you remember anything noteworthy about either ?"

-"No not really, well nothing out the ordinary as I recall.... I would say they were average, pretty typical of the average man as far as I can remember.

"Was he clean shaven or did he have a stubble or beard ?"

-"He was clean shaven and had a smooth, pale compexion. He had a roundish chin.......yes, very similar to that one there."

"What about his lips and mouth ?"

-"Again, nothing out of the ordinary there as far as I can recall, except that his upper lip was a little thinner than his bottom lip...........yes, like that one there..."
...............................................

.........."Well Miss Stonham that just about rounds things off. Take a good long look at the finished product and tell me how it compares with your memory of the man's face. Is it a good likeness or not ?"

-"Remarkably so, Mr. Mackenzie, as near as I can imagine to the real thing. I have to say I'm very impressed with this new technique."

"Do we have your sanction, permission to proceed and circulate this Identi-Kit picture in an effort to trace your attacker ?"

"Definitely, Mr Mackenzie, it is a very good likeness of the man who attacked me."