a6 murder

[jimarilyn]

Anyway enough of that we have a new contributor to welcome. So it’s a welcome to Sara from me and I must say what an entrance she has made.
Sara is obviously an excellent typist to have put that lot together; unlike my own efforts using both fore fingers and sometimes scratching my head and wondering where the ‘v or c’ went to.

Hi Tony,

I'm one up on you there. I too use both index fingers but with the occasional added touch of my right middle finger !
If you see any letter 'e' s missing from my words blame it on this laptop keyboard. I have to give that particular key a real poke.
Hope Basil and Sybil are getting on ok.

regards,
James


PS. Just noticed Sybil is almost an 'Anna Graham' of Basil

[Victor]

But what about the families (of 90 odd percent of executed people) who don't believe that their loved one was stitched up or executed wrongfully ?

Hi James,

In other words, using your figures, 10% of families of executed people believe their loved one was wrongfully executed. That's a precedent, not a big one, but still a precedent.

By the way, where did you get that 90% figure from?

KR,
Vic.

[jimarilyn]

Hi James,

In other words, using your figures, 10% of families of executed people believe their loved one was wrongfully executed. That's a precedent, not a big one, but still a precedent.

By the way, where did you get that 90% figure from?

KR,
Vic.

Hi Victor,

It's purely just an educated (or maybe not) guess on my part. Perhaps I should have said the overwhelming majority of affected families. What figure would you yourself put on it, by the way ?


regards,
James

[Victor]

Hi James,

Personally I think it will be a lot higher - as in more families think their relative was wrongly convicted, I tried googling it, but didn't have much luck.

KR,
Vic.

[reg1965]

Hi there Mr Hypocrite,

Well that would be because previously the threads would get lost in the large number of threads in the main "Shades of Whitechapel" area, but now there's a dedicated sub-folder called "A6 Murders" where the threads can't get lost.

You can only compare situations where you have comparable conditions!

Or maybe you are just too stupid to notice the change.

KR,
Vic.

Oh Dear!
This is a mess isn't it Victor?

You accused me of bullying by way of verbal abuse in your post #2590. Who is the hypocrite here you twat? You don't mind giving it out but you can't take it in return. That to me is the definition of a bully.

I don't think Victor was confused about posts getting lost. Again, have a look at Vic's post #4 on the DNA thread. The thread didn't get lost at all. Caz, Victor, Dupplin Muir, JamesDean and jimarylin all found it without any problems! Victor accused me of deflecting the argument elsewhere where no-one would see it and thus sweeping it under the carpet. Who's the hypocrite here you wretched individual?

I have no interest at all in JtR, I only subscribe to this and the other thread and have set up a link in IE for these two only. Whoever created the new subthread didn't make it all clear on this thread that that had happened!

Anyway enough of that. You have just been added to my ignore list. Arseholes like you don't deserve my time and patience...so if I were you I would not expect a reply from me to your sad and pitiful posts here.

I am sure that you are not bothered so don't waste your time replying, ever.

No regards
Reg

[simon]

I suspect I'm not the only one who's sick of the increasingly nasty insults being flung around. No wonder some of the original posters have drifted away.

Hello Sara. Good (by way of contrast) to read your contributions. But one thing you've perhaps not noticed is that, in conversation with Paul Foot - who accepted what she said - Janet Gregsten denied that the 'chance sighting' of Hanratty in Swiss Cottage ever happened.

Simon

[PC49]

I suspect I'm not the only one who's sick of the increasingly nasty insults being flung around. No wonder some of the original posters have drifted away.

Hello Sara. Good (by way of contrast) to read your contributions. But one thing you've perhaps not noticed is that, in conversation with Paul Foot - who accepted what she said - Janet Gregsten denied that the 'chance sighting' of Hanratty in Swiss Cottage ever happened.


Simon

Well said, Simon (no pun intended, by the way!) - it's a pity things seem to have degenerated somewhat at the moment.
And yes, Sara has put some excellent points forward and has clearly done a great deal of research.
I don't know what others consider about this, but one "shadowy" figure has always left me with an uneasy feeling, and that is William Ewer. Maybe he played a pivotal role in the whole issue, or maybe his eventual liaison with Janet Gregsten was simply force of circumstances??
Best regards to all contributors to the thread, whoever they may be - after all, the season goodwill is surely imminent!
PC49

[Sara]

Thanks for the welcome to the thread, which is fascinating stuff. And thanks for the responses to individual points, answers to some of which I found on the DNA thread

Sorry to say I don't remember clocking the importance of Alphon being named back in 1961. I don't remember discussing the case with anyone, I was fascinated though by the scandal of it all but mostly by Hanratty - there was something riveting about those eyes, and his face in general. Is there a contemporary photo of Alphon and the identikit somewhere on this thread?

I've only taken a general interest in the case since, until I started reading this thread and saw there was much more to it than I'd ever realised......

I read right through the DNA thread yesterday night (brickbats and all ) and I made a lot of notes... I'm only going to post one 'set' for now, I'll come back to the more technical stuff later when it's clearer in my mind.

I also hope to read more of this thread in due course, so heaven knows how to find the time when 15 of the 200 ++ pages took me so long!

[Sara]

Someone posted (sorry can't work out who from my notes):

<< I can't comment on the behaviour of Dr Whitaker, but the impression I have of him is along the same lines as yourself. Of course there's no connection between the validity of his work and his personal traits. >>

I beg to differ. Scientists. and doctors for that matter, are human beings, as given to be swayed by their feelings and their political beliefs as the rest of us. I know a 'distinguished' former forensic psychiatrist (now retired, an ex boyfriend of mine) who is very Irish and extremely left wing. Up until a few years ago he was frequently called as an expert witness in criminal cases, always for the defence and usually for 'working class' felons.

He told me "I ALWAYS TRY TO GET THEM OFF". I queried this, quite shocked by it, and he expanded that he felt there were *always* mitigating reasons for their criminality, in their upbringing etc. Their criminal guilt, and the law, played second fiddle to his anti-establishment bias


The Judges of course are totally at the mercy of expert witnesses in any case involving scientific evidence. They literally 'don't know what they are talking about', any more than the jury does (in most cases). Judges quite often do not understand the full significance of the evidence or expert opinion which is being put to the jury.

I would add - and I have a very senior criminal QC in my close family, with whom I've discussed many ongoing cases over a quiet dinner in the last 10 years at least - that many judges are intellectually challenged, to put it politely ... those who can continue to earn top dollar as QCs, do so, since becoming a High Court Judge necessitates a huge drop in salary. Go figure!

My family member although he sat as a Circuit Judge for many years in parallel with his career as a QC, and also now chairs tribunals etc, always refused to become a High Court judge mainly for that reason. Some of the stories he comes home with regarding his fellow QCs, the Judges before whom he pleads, and the antics of the police (inc or rather esp their treatment of essential evidence) have to be heard to be believed

[Tony]

I suspect I'm not the only one who's sick of the increasingly nasty insults being flung around. No wonder some of the original posters have drifted away.

Hello Sara. Good (by way of contrast) to read your contributions. But one thing you've perhaps not noticed is that, in conversation with Paul Foot - who accepted what she said - Janet Gregsten denied that the 'chance sighting' of Hanratty in Swiss Cottage ever happened.

Simon

Good morning to you Simon,

One aspect of the case which has had me puzzled for a couple of months, and I think you brought it up originally, is the meeting between Janet Gregston and Paul Foot shortly before she died (she actually eventually died whilst discussing the case I understand).
Apparently Janet contacted Paul Foot out of the blue to arrange a meeting with him and this was as a result of Mr Alphon contacting her to arrange a meeting in Ireland again to discuss the case.

Now I have spent hours trying to find anything on this without any success at all.
But if it is true; why would Alphon still want to discuss the case after all those years and just why did he want to talk to Janet and what would be the reason for the meeting to be in Ireland and why did Janet respond by contacting Paul Foot for the first time?

If this is true I detect something quite disturbing.

Are you able to help Simon?

Tony.

PS no bad language in that was there? Pretty bloody good if I do say so myself.

[Victor]

Someone posted (sorry can't work out who from my notes):

<< I can't comment on the behaviour of Dr Whitaker, but the impression I have of him is along the same lines as yourself. Of course there's no connection between the validity of his work and his personal traits. >>

Hi Sara, that would be me...

I beg to differ. Scientists. and doctors for that matter, are human beings, as given to be swayed by their feelings and their political beliefs as the rest of us.

Now that is an ethical discussion, of course some people can act in an unprofessional manner, but do you really believe a reputable scientist would risk their career by blatantly lying?

KR,
Vic.

[Victor]

Oh Dear!

No regards
Reg

Bully Boy has just shown his true colours, I didn't think it'd take very long, I call him a stupid hypocrite and he starts swearing. He just can't handle the truth...Oh we already know that from his posts about the A6 murder

KR,
Vic.

[PC49]

Bully Boy has just shown his true colours, I didn't think it'd take very long, I call him a stupid hypocrite and he starts swearing. He just can't handle the truth...Oh we already know that from his posts about the A6 murder

KR,
Vic.

"Can't handle the truth........"WE" know that from posts about the A6 Murder"

Does this automatically apply to all the other contributors who disagree with (and have every right to do so) your own views on the case?

[PC49]

Someone posted (sorry can't work out who from my notes):

<< I can't comment on the behaviour of Dr Whitaker, but the impression I have of him is along the same lines as yourself. Of course there's no connection between the validity of his work and his personal traits. >>

I beg to differ. Scientists. and doctors for that matter, are human beings, as given to be swayed by their feelings and their political beliefs as the rest of us. I know a 'distinguished' former forensic psychiatrist (now retired, an ex boyfriend of mine) who is very Irish and extremely left wing. Up until a few years ago he was frequently called as an expert witness in criminal cases, always for the defence and usually for 'working class' felons.

He told me "I ALWAYS TRY TO GET THEM OFF". I queried this, quite shocked by it, and he expanded that he felt there were *always* mitigating reasons for their criminality, in their upbringing etc. Their criminal guilt, and the law, played second fiddle to his anti-establishment bias


The Judges of course are totally at the mercy of expert witnesses in any case involving scientific evidence. They literally 'don't know what they are talking about', any more than the jury does (in most cases). Judges quite often do not understand the full significance of the evidence or expert opinion which is being put to the jury.

I would add - and I have a very senior criminal QC in my close family, with whom I've discussed many ongoing cases over a quiet dinner in the last 10 years at least - that many judges are intellectually challenged, to put it politely ... those who can continue to earn top dollar as QCs, do so, since becoming a High Court Judge necessitates a huge drop in salary. Go figure!

My family member although he sat as a Circuit Judge for many years in parallel with his career as a QC, and also now chairs tribunals etc, always refused to become a High Court judge mainly for that reason. Some of the stories he comes home with regarding his fellow QCs, the Judges before whom he pleads, and the antics of the police (inc or rather esp their treatment of essential evidence) have to be heard to be believed

Excellent Sara!
I am convinced that far too many people simply abide by everything they are spoon-fed by the Establishment, the Authorities and the Experts etc etc, as they have total faith in such august bodies. There are clearly a percentage of incompetent and corrupt people in every walk of life, and in every profession. To believe otherwise would be completely foolhardy. Congrats on your fine postings.

[Victor]

Does this automatically apply to all the other contributors who disagree with (and have every right to do so) your own views on the case?

Of course not, anyone who can argue logically deserves to have their say without facing BullyBoy tactics or gratuitous profanity, and that includes all sides of the argument.

I just can't agree with conspiracy theories...True there are sometimes rotten apples in the barrel, and this:-

There are clearly a percentage of incompetent and corrupt people in every walk of life, and in every profession. To believe otherwise would be completely foolhardy.

..is true to some extent, although I'd personally insert the word "small" before pecentage, and say "most" instead of "every" because your facing an impossible task to prove that (ie, you'd have to name a corrupt person in every profession for it to be true)

And anyway, it boils down to those 11 people on the jury who found Hanratty guilty in the end.

KR,
Vic.