a6 murder

[Rob63]

I have to agree with Limehouse, if there is the slightest doubt about the method of producing the DNA then it has to be considered unsafe and put to one side. The appeal judge took the view that the DNA proved the conviction was safe beyond doubt and didn`t seem to evaluate any other evidence produced.
There are many people on this thread who believe the DNA and many who don`t, a few push their views quite vigorously to the point where it seems to get quite personal at times, and I have to agree with Grahams recent point where it does get a bit boring as it can lead to going around in circles. There is a separate DNA thread to discuss the for and against arguments of that particular piece of evidence. This thread is mainly for discussing other evidence.
I have to admit that the main problem I have with the case is the fact that a man went to the gallows vigorously protesting his innocence. To leave his family with that belief and burden if it wasn`t true would be a very cruel legacy to inflict on them. Even if he wasn`t close to them there is no evidence to suggest that he hated them enough to do this.

[Limehouse]

Hi Rob,

Good points. In fact, Hanratty was very close to his family, even though he put them through a lot of heartache with his criminal behaviour.

I have stated before, Hanratty was no saint. He was a cold, heartless housebreaker with no conscience or remorse about the pain he inflicted on those whose homes he tainted. Despite the good role models provided by his father and other family members, Hanratty found it impossible to live an honest life for long. There was a compulsion in him to steal. I think one of the main reasons for this was that he wanted to enjoy the good life - to earn and spend large amounts of money but an ordinary, run-of-the-mill job did not provide the amounts he wanted.

Despite all this, I personally doubt whether Hanratty had the violence inside him necessary to have carried out this crime. We don't know for sure that he was not a violent man. Those that knew him claimed him to have been mild-mannered and incapable of voilence, but we don't know for sure. We do know that he achieved no remission during his frequent preriods of imprisonment and this can only have been due to his behaviour and attitude towards the prison authorities and his refusal to show remorse for his crimes. This may be a telling point.

Woffinden, like you, was very taken by Hanratty's protestations of innocence and his basic honesty throughout the trial. As others have pointed out on these threads, at times he could have given answers to questions at his trial that would have thrown the prosecution case into peril (for example he could have denied that the hanky found wrapped round the gun was his, but he didn't - he told the truth.)

[Graham]

Hi Limehouse,

For example he could have denied that the hanky found wrapped round the gun was his, but he didn't - he told the truth.

Yes, he did tell the truth, when quite honestly (and reasonably) he should have just said 'no'. I can imagine Sherrard holding his head in his hands at this juncture...

And while on the subject of the gun, no-one has yet answered my perfectly reasonable question: if the gun was planted on the bus by someone else with a view to incriminating Hanratty, why had it been wiped clean of fingerprints?

Cheers,

Graham.

PS: Limehouse, I'm no West Brom fan. They don't need fans - they need a friggin' miracle (and a new goalie).

[simon]

I have to agree with Limehouse, if there is the slightest doubt about the method of producing the DNA then it has to be considered unsafe and put to one side. The appeal judge took the view that the DNA proved the conviction was safe beyond doubt and didn`t seem to evaluate any other evidence produced.
There are many people on this thread who believe the DNA and many who don`t, a few push their views quite vigorously to the point where it seems to get quite personal at times, and I have to agree with Grahams recent point where it does get a bit boring as it can lead to going around in circles. There is a separate DNA thread to discuss the for and against arguments of that particular piece of evidence. This thread is mainly for discussing other evidence.
I have to admit that the main problem I have with the case is the fact that a man went to the gallows vigorously protesting his innocence. To leave his family with that belief and burden if it wasn`t true would be a very cruel legacy to inflict on them. Even if he wasn`t close to them there is no evidence to suggest that he hated them enough to do this.

But another way to look at it is that he loved them enough not to want them to know the truth about what he'd done, and to think badly of him.

[Graham]

But another way to look at it is that he loved them enough not to want them to know the truth about what he'd done, and to think badly of him.

I believe it was the former Warden of San Quentin Prison, California, one Mr Harley O Teets (now, there's a name to conjure with..) who said that in all his years in the prison service he never met one guilty man on Death Row...

Graham

[Rob63]

Hi Graham,
VS stated that the shooter wore gloves, if so then there wouldn`t have been any prints on the gun....unless it was handled without gloves away from the scene. I believe JH never wore gloves during his thefts but used to wipe up after himself as best he could, so if he was the shooter I would think he would`ve wiped the gun clean, a relatively easy task. If someone else was the shooter then JHs` prints wouldn`t be on there anyway. The gun was wrapped in a hanky presumably to wipe it before dumping it and aid handling so as not to leave any prints at all.
The lack of forensic evidence in the case is dumbfounding, no prints in the car except MG and VS, no fibres. No prints on the empty casings, none on the gun.

[Graham]

Agreed, Rob. So how is it people still cling to the erroneous belief that the gun was planted on the bus by someone else to incriminate Hanratty? I am sure as I can be that the gun was placed there by Hanratty, maybe in some sort of panic to be rid of it, when he should have thrown it into the Thames.
I wonder maybe if Hanratty wasn't aware of how the gun could be very quickly and easily identified as the murder-weapon. I also wonder about his question to Acott regarding the "size" of the cases found at the Vienna, linked to Simpson's stating that the gun used to kill Gregsten and wound Storie was a .32 when the "gun on the bus" was a .38 and forensically identified as the murder-weapon. I'm pretty sure that Simpson was wrong, but it sort of begs the question: Did Hanratty have two guns?

Cheers,

Graham

[Rob63]

Hi Simon,
Your theory is food for thought and I`ve considered whether JH was so ashamed he didn`t want to lumber his family with the stigma of being related to a murderer and all that entails both privately and publicly, if JH had simply said I`m innocent at the end of the trial I`d go along with that theory. The fact that in his last letters and meetings with his family he desperately asked them to clear his name goes one step further than stating his innocence in a court of law, it lumbers his family with a task which if he was guilty would be almost impossible to fulfil, if he was innocent then he must`ve been reasonably certain that something would come out of the woodwork so to speak.

[Graham]

I've said this before, but John Cannan has never confessed to the murder of Shirley Banks, for which he's doing life. Granted, he's probably holding that position so he doesn't get leaned on too heavily for the murder of Suzie Lamplugh, of which he is suspected, but even so his attitude is quote simple and plain: he didn't kill Shirley Banks so someone else must have. When all the forensics point to him and him alone....

Cheers,

Graham

[Rob63]

Hi Graham,
Ballistics was still a fairly specialised science at the time, it was only around 1960 that the Police started using there own unit, prior to this most ballistics science was carried out by Robert Churchill.
The USA in comparison had a ballistics unit going right back to the 1930s because of the level of gun crime going on over the pond. Even though there were a lot of ex mil firearms floating around in the UK at the time, shootings were still relatively small in number and ballistics science would probably have been virtually unknown to the public and even the criminal fraternity.
The citizens at that time didn`t have access to the sort of information we do, the net, books and even TV programmes provide a certain amount of education in that respect.
The fact that shell casings were more use than bullets in identifying the weapon from which they came and that the shooter didn`t take the spent casings with him leans towards the fact that he didn`t realise the impact of leaving the brass behind.
In comparison most of the public and especially the criminal fraternity knew about fingerprint identification because it had been around for decades.
Interesting thought about the two guns ?

[Rob63]

Hi Graham,
I can understand your comparison with John Cannan but there are differences, one which you`ve mentioned yourself, the other is that he isn`t facing the noose.
I could bring up another comparison, that of Timothy Evans who stated his innocence up to the last moment. I think its reasonably safe to say that Christie was responsible for the murder of his wife and child...whether TE had any knowledge of what happened to them is another matter.

[Rob63]

Graham,
Your point about JH dropping the gun on the bus in a panic certainly could`ve happened, he wouldn`t have expected the one person who knew of this hiding place to pop up in court as a prosecution witness. Given that the hanky was JHs` this theory is at least plausible and prints cannot be taken from a hanky so he may have thought he was safe. Which begs the question why own up to owning the hanky in court. It`s a great pity that the Police didn`t interview the conductress known as Pat.

[Graham]

Hi Rob,

Ballistics was still a fairly specialised science at the time, it was only around 1960 that the Police started using there own unit, prior to this most ballistics science was carried out by Robert Churchill.

I can't comment about this because I don't know - apart from being aware that Churchill (of the famous London gun-makers) was frequently brought in by the police as an expert witness. But the technique of matching a gun to its fired bullets via rifling marks on the bullet, and firing-pin marks on the cartridge, had been around for years. Maybe Hanratty genuinely didn't know this, as I suggested - he wasn't exactly Brain of Britain after all.

Fingerprinting goes back to the LVP, yet wrongdoers are nicked to this very day courtesy of leaving their dabs behind. Will they never learn?

Your mentioning Timothy Evans is interesting. These days, the consensus seems to be that he did indeed kill his daughter; I believe Christie confessed to just about all the other killings, but not to this, when he had nothing left to lose. But it's not a case I know much about. However, the other point about Evans is that to this day it's debated whether he should have hanged at all, given his mental condition. I think the same could be extended towards Hanratty, to be honest. He had been assessed in his youth - and please understand that this is not my expression - as 'mentally defective', and given his attitudes and his general demeanour, together with his rather obvious educational deficiencies, it is very doubtful that given the benefit of a more enlightened hindsight, he should even have been brought to trial. Trouble is, the law loves its pound of flesh...the US judicial system is riddled with cases of less-than-normal men being executed.

Cheers,

Graham

[Graham]

Graham,
Your point about JH dropping the gun on the bus in a panic certainly could`ve happened, he wouldn`t have expected the one person who knew of this hiding place to pop up in court as a prosecution witness. Given that the hanky was JHs` this theory is at least plausible and prints cannot be taken from a hanky so he may have thought he was safe. Which begs the question why own up to owning the hanky in court. It`s a great pity that the Police didn`t interview the conductress known as Pat.

Rob,

Wow, good job my missus is having a quiet night on E-bay....

Pamela Patt, the conductress on the 36A bus, did give a statement, apparently, and the defence decided that it contained nothing that could be considered helpful. She said she didn't see anything suspicious during that journey. The prosecution didn't call her, either, which I believe would have happened had it been considered she had material evicence for the prosecution.

As for the unknown woman at the appeal, who stood up in court to shout, "He's innocent, you should ask the conductor [not 'conductress] on the 36 bus", the same as everyone else, I haven't the foggiest idea. It's a shame no-one had the nowse to follow her out of the court and speak to her...but no-one did.

Cheers,

Graham

[Sara]

[QUOTE=Rob63;61673]I have to agree with Limehouse, if there is the slightest doubt about the method of producing the DNA then it has to be considered unsafe and put to one side. The appeal judge took the view that the DNA proved the conviction was safe beyond doubt and didn`t seem to evaluate any other evidence produced.
There are many people on this thread who believe the DNA and many who don`t, a few push their views quite vigorously to the point where it seems to get quite personal at times, and I have to agree with Grahams recent point where it does get a bit boring as it can lead to going around in circles. There is a separate DNA thread to discuss the for and against arguments of that particular piece of evidence. This thread is mainly for discussing other evidence.
QUOTE]

- the Appeal Judge didn't understand sufficiently well the science of LCN DNA, as is obvious form his remarks; and hwo coudl he since its unreliability is only now starting to be made public. He failed to grasp - as did the defence imo - how experimental it was and still is, that it's not universally accepted as evidence, and how open it is to interpretation (by - as some of us keep pointing out - people with a financial stake in covering up its deficiencies, and who are moreover employed by the state).

- the other thread was started to discuss the science of DNA, with specific ref to LCN DNA as opposed to the usual - and universally accepted - techniques

- how can we NOT refer to the DNA, since the failure of the Appeal was a result of the judge's (and imo the defence's) failure to make clear the speculative nature of LCN techniques? We are nto merely discussing whether or not Hanratty was innocent of the crime, but whether he should have been hung - or later pardoned - ON THE EVIDENCE.

There is imo no other evidence in the case which we can be certain 'beyond reasonable doubt' is infallible; so the matter of the DNA being the deciding factor needs to be addressed. This is especially the case since some posters on here (Graham is one) have admitted they don't read the DNA thread. Nevertheless they seem to feel qualified to dismiss the unreliability of LCN techniques!