a6 murder

[Victor]

DNA Evidence

Following the order of the court on 17 October 2000, James Hanratty's body was exhumed and samples taken from which it has been possible for Dr Whitaker of the Forensic Science Laboratory to state with what a non-scientist would regard as equivalent to absolute certainty (or almost absolute certainty as makes no difference) that the DNA profile recovered from the fragment of knickers and the DNA profile recovered from the mucus staining on the handkerchief have come from James Hanratty. That is not in dispute and, indeed, it is conceded by Mr Mansfield on behalf of the appellant that, should it transpire that all possibility of contamination can be excluded, the DNA evidence points conclusively to James Hanratty having been both the murderer and the rapist.

All concede that the DNA evidence points conclusively to Hanratty being the murderer. And that includes the defence team. How interesting.

KR,
Vic.

[Victor]

Michael Clark

Here's a bit about him from the judgment paras 141 & 143

The notebook would fall to be disclosed under contemporary common law rules; it is less clear that it represented an inconsistent statement by 1962 standards. Further, it would have been open to the defence to require that the identified man be brought to court. Mr Sherrard asked if he was available to be brought and was told:

"He was some time ago, but I cannot say off-hand."

The officer was not pressed further.

Finally, the evidence about the man whom Valerie Storie had identified was not consistent on this point. Dr. Rennie, who had treated Valerie Storie, was present at this parade and was asked if he could recall the appearance of the man whom Valerie Storie had identified. He stated: "As far as I remember he had rather fairish hair and bluish eyes". In our view, there was no great mileage for the defence in this point. The most important feature (namely that Valerie Storie had identified a volunteer on the parade who could not have been involved) was fully deployed before the jury.

Interesting.

KR,
Vic.

[reg1965]

Did Evison appear at the appeal, or was he someone the media found to give the alternative view? Did he have any official status, or was he just a commentator?

Hi Peter

Evison is mentioned in the Appeal as being the sole expert witness for the defence. see p 120 of the judgement.

With regard to the hanky being identified by JH. I am not sure where I got this from. I am sure that Dupplin Muir mentioned it back in August last year but apart from that I am not sure, there must have been a reference.
Even so the windows of opportunity for contamination would be the same or even more likely. The hanky certainly would have come into contact with other garments of JH's having been stored with them in a box during the trial and then laid out in court.

Reg

[reg1965]

All concede that the DNA evidence points conclusively to Hanratty being the murderer. And that includes the defence team. How interesting.

Hi Vic

The repondents could not rule out contamination. Period. The quote from which you make the above statement says and I quote

should it transpire that all possibility of contamination can be excluded

If the responents cannot rule out contamination completely then it would be impudent to claim that the defence accepted JH's guilt.

How can you make this claim based on the evidence that you say is correct ie the ruling document?

Regards
Reg

[reg1965]

It seems that Victor is working his way through the Court of Appeal judgement and picking out bits and pieces to post.

found here

http://www.hmcourts-service.gov.uk/judgmentsfiles/j1166/HANRATTY.htm

If anyone here hasn't read it, I would suggest that you do. Like any other book or article on the case, it is an extemely important part of the case; whether you are for or against JH.

Please read it AND POST YOUR VIEWS.

Kindest regards
Reg

[P.L.A]

I recently viewed Bob Woffinden’s Channel 4 documentary on the A6 case for the umpteenth time.

In it, Michael Hanratty clearly says that Sherrard told his brother that he would have to go into the box at Bedford - and on hearing this, James changed his alibi.

In the mini review of Sherrard’s biography on this forum, we learn that the lawer is claiming it was Hanratty who said he wanted to give evidence.

Glad to see that it isn’t just me that is running on my last few grey cells. Lord knows which is the correct version. Maybe somewhere in the middle, if that is possible.

Also in the programme, Michael is very emotional about how James’s DNA could have got onto the exhibits, but he doesn’t suggest that his brother admitted the handkerchief was his and handled it in the witness box. Swanwick didn’t mention the ownership of the handkerchief in his summing up as a factor pointing towards Hanratty’s guilt. Nobody in court asked, how, if Hanratty admitted the handkerchief was his, it managed to get onto the bus with the gun. There seems to be only one conclusion to all this.

Peter.

[reg1965]

I recently viewed Bob Woffinden’s Channel 4 documentary on the A6 case for the umpteenth time.

In it, Michael Hanratty clearly says that Sherrard told his brother that he would have to go into the box at Bedford - and on hearing this, James changed his alibi.

In the mini review of Sherrard’s biography on this forum, we learn that the lawer is claiming it was Hanratty who said he wanted to give evidence.

Glad to see that it isn’t just me that is running on my last few grey cells. Lord knows which is the correct version. Maybe somewhere in the middle, if that is possible.

Also in the programme, Michael is very emotional about how James’s DNA could have got onto the exhibits, but he doesn’t suggest that his brother admitted the handkerchief was his and handled it in the witness box. Swanwick didn’t mention the ownership of the handkerchief in his summing up as a factor pointing towards Hanratty’s guilt. Nobody in court asked, how, if Hanratty admitted the handkerchief was his, it managed to get onto the bus with the gun. There seems to be only one conclusion to all this.

Peter.

Hi Peter
Bob Woffindens film was made in 1992, 3 years before any DNA tests were performed.

The BBC Horizon programme in 2002 included the DNA evidence.

Hope this helps

Reg

[jimarilyn]

It seems that Victor is working his way through the Court of Appeal judgement and picking out bits and pieces to post.

found here

http://www.hmcourts-service.gov.uk/judgmentsfiles/j1166/HANRATTY.htm

If anyone here hasn't read it, I would suggest that you do. Like any other book or article on the case, it is an extemely important part of the case; whether you are for or against JH.

Please read it AND POST YOUR VIEWS.

Kindest regards
Reg

Hi Reg

That's twice now that I've read this document.

I read the remaining 45 paragraphs of the Court of Appeal judgment this evening ( I'd read up to paragraph 171 when I last accessed the document a couple or so months ago).
In my opinion it's best read slowly and in small doses as it's full of double talk/legal jargon that's often hard to comprehend. When reading this judgment you have to read between the lines.
The 3 judges go out of their way to make excuses for any irregular behaviour/non disclosure of evidence by the police. Basil Acott and Ken Oxford can do no wrong in their eyes. I agree thoroughly with Michael Hanratty's passionate and heartfelt reaction to it. It is a complete whitewash. Those 3 judges saw only what they wanted to see.

The last two paragraphs are very revealing.

Paragraph 214 is extremely patronising to the Hanratty family.
Paragraph 215 is possibly the most revealing paragraph in the whole judgment and tells us a lot about the mentality and agenda of those judges.

regards,
James

[Victor]

The repondents could not rule out contamination. Period.

If the responents cannot rule out contamination completely then it would be impudent to claim that the defence accepted JH's guilt.

Hi Reg,

The respondents couldn't rule out the possibility of contamination, but as none was detected then their conclusion is that Hanratty was guilty. QED.

KR,
Vic.

[Victor]

In my opinion it's best read slowly and in small doses as it's full of double talk/legal jargon that's often hard to comprehend.

Hi James,
I completely agree with the above.

When reading this judgment you have to read between the lines.
The 3 judges go out of their way to make excuses for any irregular behaviour/non disclosure of evidence by the police. Basil Acott and Ken Oxford can do no wrong in their eyes. I agree thoroughly with Michael Hanratty's passionate and heartfelt reaction to it. It is a complete whitewash. Those 3 judges saw only what they wanted to see.

But I don't know how you came to that conclusion. The earlier part of the document shows Michael Mansfield attempting all devious legal trickery in his power to squirm out of reviewing the case.

Paragraph 214 is extremely patronising to the Hanratty family.

I don't get that at all, that paragraph is extremely sympathetic to the Hanratty family, and congratulates them on their dedication to their cause, even though they were duped by James.

Paragraph 215 is possibly the most revealing paragraph in the whole judgment and tells us a lot about the mentality and agenda of those judges.

Yes, it quite clearly expresses that justice must be seen to be done, but that there must come a point where you say Hanratty's guilt has been clearly established and spending any more money investigating it further would be a waste.

KR,
Vic.

[P.L.A]

Another Programme

I recently viewed Bob Woffinden’s Channel 4 documentary on the A6 case for the umpteenth time.

In it, Michael Hanratty clearly says that Sherrard told his brother that he would have to go into the box at Bedford - and on hearing this, James changed his alibi.

In the mini review of Sherrard’s biography on this forum, we learn that the lawer is claiming it was Hanratty who said he wanted to give evidence.

Glad to see that it isn’t just me that is running on my last few grey cells. Lord knows which is the correct version. Maybe somewhere in the middle, if that is possible.

Also in the programme, Michael is very emotional about how James’s DNA could have got onto the exhibits, but he doesn’t suggest that his brother admitted the handkerchief was his and handled it in the witness box. Swanwick didn’t mention the ownership of the handkerchief in his summing up as a factor pointing towards Hanratty’s guilt. Nobody in court asked, how, if Hanratty admitted the handkerchief was his, it managed to get onto the bus with the gun. There seems to be only one conclusion to all this.

Peter.

Hi Reg

Yes, the first bit of the posting related to the Woffinden programme and the second section should have cited one of the programmes broadcast after the second appeal. I watched them all quite recently - sad.

Nevertheless, in the Channel 4 programme the DNA testing had started, it was here that Patrick Lincoln was talking about the first results.

Peter.

[Victor]

b) She [VS] apparently had poor eyesight without her glasses.

Hi James,

VS was short-sighted wasn't she?

I'm quite badly short-sighted, which means that without my contact lenses or glasses, distant objects are very blurred, but close things are quite clear - e.g., I can read perfectly well without my lenses - therefore viewing someone who's close enough, such as someone raping you, is no problem at all.

KR,
Vic.

[Victor]

Mr Cookes DNA may have survived and fromed part of a mixed profile irrespective of what the FSS said at the appeal.

Hi Reg,

The latter part of the sentence above is wrong.

From Para 126 of the judgment:

The only DNA extracted from the handkerchief came from James Hanratty. The only places on the handkerchief from which his DNA was extracted were the areas of mucus staining.

Conclusively, no DNA from Edwin Cooke nor anyone else was found on the handkerchief, there was no contamination.

KR,
Vic.

[Tony]

Hi James,

VS was short-sighted wasn't she?

I'm quite badly short-sighted, which means that without my contact lenses or glasses, distant objects are very blurred, but close things are quite clear - e.g., I can read perfectly well without my lenses - therefore viewing someone who's close enough, such as someone raping you, is no problem at all.

KR,
Vic.

Hello Vic,

Well how many times have you been raped then?


OK feel free to have a go; I deserve it.

Tony.

[Victor]

Hi Victor,

Excuse the crude terminology, but if the rapist was physically incapable of ejaculating then no semen would appear on Miss Storie's knickers.

regards,
James

Hi James,

That is true, but there was a semen stain on the knickers and it was blood-typed as O secretor in 1961.

KR,
Vic.