a6 murder

[jimarilyn]

After picking up for a short time, this thread is now once more boring...and in one case boorish...the arguments are now so circular that I'm getting dizzy.

Graham

Hi Graham,

I'm sure a lot of the contributors to this thread would disagree with this point of view.
I'm also sure that if it was as boring as you're trying to make out there wouldn't be over 3,000 individual postings, 123,000 + views and 50 contributors.

Perhaps it's a little too much vino that's making you dizzy.

regards,
James

[Graham]

Hi Graham,

I'm sure a lot of the contributors to this thread would disagree with this point of view.
I'm also sure that if it was as boring as you're trying to make out there wouldn't be over 3,000 individual postings, 123,000 + views and 50 contributors.

Perhaps it's a little too much vino that's making you dizzy.

regards,
James

Hi James,

Yes, this thread is the most watched on this site, and quite rightly too. I've been a contributor right from the start on the old site before the Great Crash.
I'm pleased that my little post has prompted a response, which is what it was intended to do.

I think the basic problem all posters have is the simple fact that there is very little chance of any new evidence coming to light - at least unless the police one day care to fully open the files, if indeed there are any files left to open. Obviously there is the possibility of surviving participants in the case offering information, and we did have a little sniff of this reference Bluemoon's posts, but nothing seriously concrete is forthcoming (so far). I've seen the same situation on the Ripper threads - one can argue one's point for ever and a day, and it's either accepted or rejected, but either way nothing can be proved or disproved. Not that that is a bad thing in itself, because healthy debate is great and has to be encouraged. I honestly believe that until someone with far greater investigative skills than I'll ever have gets his or her teeth into the A6 Case we'll simply continue going round in circles. Reg said that Woffinden is still interested, but to earn his living Woffinden has to keep moving - I think his current interest is the Billy-Jo Jenkins Case. If someone of the status of Woffinden ever picks up on the A6 Case then perhaps we may see something new, or at least a new slant on existing evidence. From a personal point-of-view I've not got involved in the DNA debate, for the simple reason I don't have the necessary expertise or knowledge to debate it, and until it can be proved beyond any reasonable doubt that the A6 DNA evidence is fatally flawed, I will continue to accept it. I've also been involved over the years with debate reference the Lindbergh Kidnapping Case, and the same thing applies there. For all his terrific efforts re: the A6, good old Paul Foot did everything he could possibly do, and even if he were alive today I don't think he could seriously add much to the debate except to support his own views.

I know that one former poster to this thread spent a good deal of his own time trying to contact surviving participants in the A6 Case, and although his efforts weren't totally wasted he drew something of a blank. Of course, one has to respect the ordinary human right to privacy, and this has to be totally respected, it goes without saying. The arguments and debate on this thread have become somewhat circular, I don't think many people would contradict this, but that doesn't mean to say that the arguments and debate shouldn't continue. I read it every day, with continued and sustained interest, and I make my own little contributions when I see fit.

One last point - the odd thing is that we probably know more about certain central characters of the Ripper Case after 120 years than we do about certain central characters of the A6 Case after only 47 years.

By the way, not the vino tonight - I'm savouring Thai Chang Beer following a visit today to Birmingham's wonderful Wing Yip complex. Cheers!

Graham

[Rob63]

Some pics of the inside of the car. In the second one, the two objects on the left rear footwell are the spent cartridge cases.

[P.L.A]

Harry Allen Biography

I’ve just finished reading a recent biography of Harry Allen. Not too much in the book about the hangman, it is more to do with his 8am customers.

One such customer was Jack Day, and there are some coincidences with the A6 murder.

Day shot Keith Allen dead on 23rd August 1960 in Dunstable, Bedfordshire, with a .38 Enfield revolver that he carried round in his jacket pocket wrapped in a handkerchief. He was hanged by Harry Allen at Bedford Prison on 29th March 1961.

Wonder how close the serial number of Day’s revolver was to the H8839 used on Deadmans Hill exactly one year later.

Peter

[P.L.A]

John Russell

Wasn’t John Russell one of Dixie France’s brothers in law who told the Sunday Times in 1966 that he refused to travel as a passenger in any car being driven by Hanratty because of the latter’s driving?

Peter

[P.L.A]

Dr. Patrick Lincoln

Does anyone know what became of Dr. Patrick Lincoln, or heard of any statements from him?

Dr. Lincoln observed the initial DNA testing on behalf of the Hanratty family.

Peter

[jimarilyn]

I’ve just finished reading a recent biography of Harry Allen. Not too much in the book about the hangman, it is more to do with his 8am customers.

One such customer was Jack Day, and there are some coincidences with the A6 murder.

Day shot Keith Allen dead on 23rd August 1960 in Dunstable, Bedfordshire, with a .38 Enfield revolver that he carried round in his jacket pocket wrapped in a handkerchief. He was hanged by Harry Allen at Bedford Prison on 29th March 1961.

Wonder how close the serial number of Day’s revolver was to the H8839 used on Deadmans Hill exactly one year later.

Peter

Hi Peter,

Good to see you back on this thread. A very interesting post. Very spooky indeed the 23rd August/Beds/Enfield coincidence. I wonder if there was an attempted murder with a .38 Enfield in Bedfordshire on August 23rd 1962 ?

Like many others I would dearly love to know who the last owner of H8839 was. I wonder if Acott ever found out this vital piece of information. Wasn't gun control/ownership very strict at that time in the UK ?


regards,
James

[jimarilyn]

Hi Peter,

Just done a quick google on Jack Day/Keith Allen but couldn't find anything.
I'll do a more detailed search later and see what comes up.


regards,
James

[P.L.A]

Hi James

It was Keith Arthur that Jack Day shot - sorry for the error.

Peter

[jimarilyn]

One such customer was Jack Day, and there are some coincidences with the A6 murder.

Day shot Keith Allen dead on 23rd August 1960 in Dunstable, Bedfordshire, with a .38 Enfield revolver that he carried round in his jacket pocket wrapped in a handkerchief.

Hi Peter,

Are you sure it's Keith Allen and not Keith Arthur.
According to the following website (full of fascinating information on Capital Punishment/executions in the UK ) Jack Day was hanged for murdering Keith Arthur.

http://www.capitalpunishmentuk.org/contents.html

regards,
James

[P.L.A]

James

Our postings crossed.

Try this

http://www.trurodaily.com/index.cfm?sid=117439&sc=73

Peter

[jimarilyn]

Hi Peter,

Just read that article, it makes fascinating reading. I hope the experience didn't traumatise young Patricia too much.

regards,
James

[SteveS]

Hi there everyone
Hope you all had a good xmas. Happy new year.
Although my first point is about the DNA I feel it would be best to post it here as it is not as technical as the stuff that has been put up on the DNA thread.
I have a number of points about it.

LCN was used in the evidence which caused the Hanratty family appeal to be turned down. From what I have read on the other thread this LCN is a very haphazard technique.
It seems that the amount of DNA that was tested was very small so the results could be wrong because of interpretation errors and contamination.
It is because of recent cases involving LCN that these issues have come to light.
When LCN DNA boffins talk of billions to one against a profile not being that of a suspect, it seems that this figure comes from a product rule associated with the number of times that a particular peak appears in a profile. If any number of these is wrong then the probability figure is reduced exponentially.

Why did the CCRC refer the Hanratty case back to the court of appeal if the DNA was so certain in pin pointing Hanratty as the killer? The case work they did took over 2 years and was led by an ex chief constable of Hertfordshire a Mr Baden Skitt. He was shocked by the DNA evidence as the discovered case files showed that Hanratty was innocent and the case had been rigged.

I'll post more later
Tnx
Steve

[Sara]

Hello Vic, When he enquires about the non-revealing of Michael Clark in Court which I think was one of Michael Sherrard’s biggest errors you reply thus:

“If he was available, if he was contactable...So there's a couple of reasons why he wasn't produced.”
I am sorry but that is not two reasons; it is not even one.

If you were on trial for your life, and whether guilty or not, and you knew the witness had identified another man you would instruct your brief to go and have a look at him.

If asked Justice Gorman would have instructed Acott to bring him into court. There would have been no such excuse as: ‘not available’ or ‘not contactable’. A man’s life was at stake for God’s sake.
And by the way in sworn evidence Valerie Storie stated Michael Clark bore a strong resemblance to Peter Alphon.

Tony.

Agreed, and this was just one of the appalling mistakes made by the defence - I don't think they were taking the fact that that Hanratty might lose his life seriously enough - they thought the evidence was weak enough to to make conviction impossible. They could and should have blown holes in the evidence - even the fact that the spent cartridges were found ten days AFTER the crime in the hotel where in which Hanratty stayed BEFORE the crime was committed is enough imo for a jury to smell a rat

Regarding Michael Clark: he was a seaman, but it was almost certainly possible - PROVIDED he was working on a British vessel, to compel him to attend court to give evidence. There would certainly have been a contact address given for him when he attended the parade - police bureaucracy sees to that. It would have been possible to find him at least

Sub poenas were much more used then than now (a sub poena legally obliged the recipient to attend court to give evidence, and could be issued by a judge on the request of either side - I was issued with one in '62 aged only 16 and had to cancel my first skiing holiday !!). I believe it's more difficult now to force witness to testify

Back to contamination of the DNA evidence, there is chapter and verse (testimony given at oneof the appeals iirc, cited on this or the other thread) that the ORIGINAL forensic examination of Storie's garments was done the day following that of Hanratty's clothing. Knowing what we do now about the almost inevitable cross-contamination of DNA in the minute amounts used in LCN testing, it's impossible to say that Stories panties were not contaminated by an infinitessimal speck of JN's DNA in the lab (from a work surface or from someone's lab coat sleeve even) - and that's all it would take.

People had no idea at all in those days how extremely rigorous one had to be, even for ordinary DNA purposes, or they would not have carried all the bits of physical 'evidence' in the same little box/attache case.

Given the lack of understanding then, cross-contamination might even - I'd say easily - have come from using the same pair of scissors to cut a patch from each garment for test purposes. The kind of cleaning of the scissors which woudl happen in those days would not be sufficient to avoid some traces of the DNA in the previous garment - Hanratty's semem-stained trousers in fact, obtained by the police for the purpose - from lodging in the scissors

IN any event, LCN technique is entirely a matter of interpretation, and on the 'evidence' so far we''d be insane to take it as gospel

I'm afraid anyone who doesn't understand this, esp quite how miniscule the traces used in LCN techniques are, is missing the whole point of why doubt is still inevitable - and always will be

People just didnt; understand in those days

[Limehouse]

Brilliant post Sara - and the most compelling case for suspecting the DNA that I have read on this thread.