a6 murder

[Graham]

Just passing through, but here are a couple of points:

1] Re: sightings of the car. Charles Drayton, a milkman, had to slam on his anchors to avoid a collision with a car that jumped the lights at the junction of Ampthill Road and St John's Street in Bedford, at 5.25 a.m. on 23rd August. Mr Drayton made a note of the registration which was 847 BHN. He said there was no passenger. This I believe was the only genuine sighting of the car before it entered the Greater London area, and if it was Hanratty behind the wheel (as I believe it was) bang goes your image of a careful, accomplished, steady driver. (One small point - Bedford is north of Deadmans Hill - possibly reinforcing the claim of sightings even further north - and if JH left the crime scene at shortly after 3.00am it took him a long time to get there. I wonder if he might have driven aimlessly around the lanes for a time, or perhaps parked in a quiet lane to spend some time cleaning the inside of the car. Don't know).

2] I had a distant relative who owned a guest-house near Margate and he was put out of business in the early 1960's for (a) owing a bomb to the Inland Revenue and (b) not maintaining his premises to the required standard. We were somewhat shocked to hear this, as this relative had always been a paragon of virtue, etc., etc. Just shows.

3] I went with a friend in his car to a job interview and sat in the car while he was in the company's premises. When he came out he was hopping mad over what had been said to him, and damn near killed us a couple of times on our way home, driving like a raving maniac. This bloke also happened to be a rally-driver - and it was the last time I ever got into a car with him.

Have fun.

Graham

[jimarilyn]

Mr Acott on the other hand did have an axe to grind with someone: James Hanratty. And what did this honest upright policeman do about their statements? Did he tell the defence? Did he hell.

Spot on Tony.

Amongst other things Mr Fault(y) tried very hard to discredit Hanratty's story about the Stanmore burlaries of October 1st 1961 (the occasion when Hanratty tore his pin-striped jacket) and strongly implied that he was lying from start to finish about it. This was to no avail however, as Hanratty's story checked out 100% and was verified beyond any doubt by the Stanmore police and the victims of those housebreakings. It seems Big Baz certainly had it in for Hanratty doesn't it ?


regards,
James

[Victor]

Hi James,

Hi Victor,

This "evidence" is what VS stated the murderer stated was the reason why he shot MG.

Thank you, yes it is evidence.

But what about the hundreds of occasions he drove on a racetrack without incident/accident. He died due to human error on his or another person's part.

So your point is what? Normally stress didn't adversely affect his driving, but on this occasion it could have contributed to his death - exactly my point.

What is your basis for believing that Henry Paul was stressed out ? He was under the influence of too much alcohol while driving. Are you making this up as you go along Victor ?

It was mentioned in the media as a contributing factor at the time.

I think you need to re-read the 3rd paragraph of your post 3215.

This one "I would even go so far as to say that it would be expected that the killer would make mistakes of the sort seen whilst getting away from such a horrendous crime scene, especially if he's sitting in a bloodsplattered drivers seat."

You're very much mistaken here Victor. John Skillett and Edward Blackhall testified to witnessing bad/careless driving of a Morris Minor. James Trower and Paddy Hogan however never testified to any such thing.

regards,
James

I'm sure they mention crunching gears, which is an example of poor driving.

PS. Re. Your tendency to pick people's posts apart unnecessarily... If I was so inclined Victor, I could argue the toss with you from now until the cows come home (now where did they wander off to I wonder ?) but that would be so tiring, time-consuming and counter-productive not to say a complete turn off to other contributors. The thread would then get bogged down and there'd be hardly any advance.

Yes you could as could I, but I'm not interested in prolonging the arguments by questioning obvious things, for example, asking me who the witnesses who mentioned bad driving were, when I'm perfectly aware that you have a deeper knowledge of those points than myself, or questioning whether stress has a negative impact on driving ability when it's probably in the highway code. If you want to deliberately divert the thread into those things then that is your choice.

KR,
Vic.

[reg1965]

Hi Burkhilly

Sorry for the delay in replying

Reg

There's are some points I'd like to know related to DNA testing and the matter they use in the tests.

1. When they use matter to identify DNA, how "fresh" does the matter need to be? In particular I'm thinking of the famous hankie which seems to have been handled by everyone in the Courtroom, however, the DNA identified on the Hankie is only JH. Clearly mucus lasts for a long time, but sweat and tiny skin samples evaporate - or do they?

Ideally the fresher the sample the better. Storage is also important, frozen and dark is considered best practice.
Even so DNA has been extracted from 40,000 year old mammoths!
See post # 130 on the DNA thread about persistence and transfer.

The windows of opportunity for contamination of the hanky are various as it was certainly presented at trial along with articles of Hanrattys all jumbled up in a box and laid out in court.
As for the knicker fragment, which wasn't presented at trial the windows are less obvious but certainly possible. For one the handling of exhibits at the commital is not known And secondly on the 28/12/61 Hanrattys green suit was examined by Dr Grant on behalf of the Hanratty family. The following day Valerie Stories knickers were examined and the crotch fragment then removed for safe keeping.

2. Can you explain to me the broken vial which contained liquid related to JH's trousers. What was this? What was the process?

3. To get things clear in my mind, am I correct that the broken vial and the knicker fragment were kept together in the same box, and the vial got broken at some point? However, the knicker fragment was in a cellophane wrapper, inside a paper envelope.

If you can reply without "too much science" I'd be really grateful.

Thanks!!!

Apparently a wash was taken of Hanratty's Hepworth trousers and retained in a vial. A bung and broken glass were found amoung the exhibits when rediscovered in 1991.
It would seem unlikely that this would have provided a source of contamination but it is possible when we are dealing with DNA and its microscopic nature.

If you want to get up to speed with things DNA and LCN then see posts #126 to #129 on the DNA thread.

HTH
Regards
Reg

[Victor]

The windows of opportunity for contamination of the hanky are various as it was certainly presented at trial along with articles of Hanrattys all jumbled up in a box and laid out in court.
As for the knicker fragment, which wasn't presented at trial the windows are less obvious but certainly possible. For one the handling of exhibits at the commital is not known And secondly on the 28/12/61 Hanrattys green suit was examined by Dr Grant on behalf of the Hanratty family. The following day Valerie Stories knickers were examined and the crotch fragment then removed for safe keeping.

Apparently a wash was taken of Hanratty's Hepworth trousers and retained in a vial. A bung and broken glass were found amoung the exhibits when rediscovered in 1991.
It would seem unlikely that this would have provided a source of contamination but it is possible when we are dealing with DNA and its microscopic nature.

Hi Reg,

You are again demonstrating the opportunity or possibility of contamination, which is beyond doubt as everyone agrees - there were opportunities for contamination to occur, but it didn't happen.

To quote the judgment... "But that is to ignore the results of the DNA profiling" ... "the DNA evidence standing alone is certain proof of James Hanratty's guilt."

KR,
Vic.

[Rob63]

Originally Posted by Rob63 View Post
Something which has baffled me is why the Police didn`t try to ascertain who supplied the gun to the assailant. The gun must`ve had a serial number (unless it was ground off) so it would`ve been reasonably easy for the firearms boys to track it. A revolver with that much ammo is quite a haul especially when it is involved in a case of this seriousness. Does anyone know if this was followed up by the Police or did they simply ignore this line of enquiry?

They did. Baz asked Hanratty about Donald Fisher (IIRC)?

Indeed but just how far did the enquiry go. Did they search DFs` house for the odd cartridge lying around. Had DF supplied arms to anyone else. Why did JH believe that DF could supply him arms, had he a reputation for being able to supply.

[Tony]

Indeed but just how far did the enquiry go. Did they search DFs` house for the odd cartridge lying around. Had DF supplied arms to anyone else. Why did JH believe that DF could supply him arms, had he a reputation for being able to supply.

Hello Rob,

Can you, as our resident firearms expert, give me your opinion as to what the state of the inside of the car and it’s occupants would be after the shooting incident?

Thank you, Sir.

Tony.

[burkhilly]

Thanks to Reg for your responses/opinion on the questions I asked.

I'm on page 302 of the thread now, and I must say I starting to slide off the fence into the "JH is innocent" side.

It's taken me weeks to read through this thread, and I've still got the DNA thread to go through.

Along with almost everyone else, I agree that JH's conviction was clearly unsafe in 1961 and it was only with the DNA evidence in 2002 that many, like myself, believed that the police had got it right.

I'm now trying to get my head around the DNA stuff, which I find really difficult to understand. After I've read the DNA thread, I am going to research, research and research, until I'm a little more informed.

This thread continues to be fantastic, and I just wish I had your logical way of thinking and making some valuable contributions. Perhaps years from now when I'm an expert in DNA - I will!

[Tony]

Thanks to Reg for your responses/opinion on the questions I asked.

I'm on page 302 of the thread now, and I must say I starting to slide off the fence into the "JH is innocent" side.

It's taken me weeks to read through this thread, and I've still got the DNA thread to go through.

Along with almost everyone else, I agree that JH's conviction was clearly unsafe in 1961 and it was only with the DNA evidence in 2002 that many, like myself, believed that the police had got it right.

I'm now trying to get my head around the DNA stuff, which I find really difficult to understand. After I've read the DNA thread, I am going to research, research and research, until I'm a little more informed.

This thread continues to be fantastic, and I just wish I had your logical way of thinking and making some valuable contributions. Perhaps years from now when I'm an expert in DNA - I will!

A word of warning Burkhilly,

Read the main thread before you attempt the DNA section and then in the words of Jimarilyn: “Have plenty of paracetemol to hand”.

I think it is good advice indeed.

Tony.

[Rob63]

Hi Tony, here`s a pic of the front seat area, pity it isn`t in colour. If I recall correctly there were two blood clots in the footwell, I presume this would`ve been the passenger footwell.
I can only assume that if VS was in the passenger seat at the time of the shooting there would`ve been some blood spatter on her clothing....probably lower body area, and also in the footwell area. There doesn`t seem to be any evidence from the photo of a large spattering on the dashboard.
I`d always thought that MG was reaching into the passenger footwell for the bag when he was shot but VS stated that when she was raped she was leaning back against the bag, so maybe it was in the back seat all the time...but if this was the case then why would the assailant who was sat in the back seat ask MG to pass it to him?. If this wasn`t the case then at some point the bag must`ve been moved from the front footwell into the back after MG was shot...but why?

[reg1965]

Hi Reg,

You are again demonstrating the opportunity or possibility of contamination, which is beyond doubt as everyone agrees - there were opportunities for contamination to occur, but it didn't happen.

To quote the judgment... "But that is to ignore the results of the DNA profiling" ... "the DNA evidence standing alone is certain proof of James Hanratty's guilt."

KR,
Vic.

Hi Vic
Yes I was again demonstrating the opportunity or possibility of contamination. Can you, without reference to the judgement say with hand on heart that contamination didn't occur...or are you just taking what the appeal court says as being gospel. Would you stick you head in a gas oven and turn it on on their say so? Honest answer please!

As for the DNA evidence standing alone is certain proof of James Hanratty's guilt. This cannot be true because DNA analysis (although not LCN which cannot even exclude) can only truly exclude anyone from a profile. DNA profiling is like any evidential tool, a piece of a much larger picture.

Also where was it ever stated that Mrs Grace Jones was evading UK taxation via non-disclosure of her true and correct income from self-employment as you have mentioned quite a lot on here?
I have not found out anything about her being accused of, charged with or done for tax evasion! If you could supply your sources I would be most appreciative.

Regards
Reg

[reg1965]

Indeed but just how far did the enquiry go. Did they search DFs` house for the odd cartridge lying around. Had DF supplied arms to anyone else. Why did JH believe that DF could supply him arms, had he a reputation for being able to supply.

Hi Rob
Fisher wasn't even called as a witness for the prosecution. If Acott had any inkling that Fisher could be useful he would have put him in the witness box.
Regards
Reg

[Rob63]

Cheers Reg, so Mr Fisher was the only link between JH and firearms and the Police didn`t think it was a good link...that sounds like they didn`t make any more enquiries about where JH supposedly got the gun. If I was a copper one of the first things I would ask someone is where did you get the shooter, maybe they put this question to JH, maybe he wouldn`t answer, maybe he couldn`t for obvious reasons.

[Sara]

I accept the DNA is damning though and I wonder if it wasn't for that, if Hanratty would have been pardoned by now. But the DNA result does exist........

all the best Viv

But some of do not believe that it does exist! If you read back in this thread Viv, and esp if you read up about DNA techniques on the DNA thread, you will see that the *only* DNA "evidence" linking Hanratty to the (now destroyed) infinitessimily small DNA samples used in the 2002 appeal was obtained by the 'Low Copy Number' technique

This has been totally discredited in the eyes of many foresnic scientists and is therefore NOT accepted as evidence in the vast majory of national jurisdictions. In fact there are only two countries which do accpet it - one of which is the UK

This has been constantly pointed out in this thread by several of us, but some posters persist in ignoring this inconvenient fact and speak as if the DNA "evidence" was obtained by the usual accepted techniques. It wasn't.

They also continue to ignore the fact that there was - and there remains - a very real possibility that the fragment samples were contaminated in some way - some of us have expounded on this a few weeks ago. We simply cannot, if we have open minds, assume that the full rigour of current practice in the handling of samples was current in the early 60s - even if a naive judge did come to that conclusion. My own reading of the judgement is that he did not understand the hazards of the LCN technique; which in fairness almost no-one did then.

We should be a little wiser now.

[jimornot?]

But some of do not believe that it does exist! If you read back in this thread Viv, and esp if you read up about DNA techniques on the DNA thread, you will see that the *only* DNA "evidence" linking Hanratty to the (now destroyed) infinitessimily small DNA samples used in the 2002 appeal was obtained by the 'Low Copy Number' technique

This has been totally discredited in the eyes of many foresnic scientists and is therefore NOT accepted as evidence in the vast majory of national jurisdictions. In fact there are only two countries which do accpet it - one of which is the UK

This has been constantly pointed out in this thread by several of us, but some posters persist in ignoring this inconvenient fact and speak as if the DNA "evidence" was obtained by the usual accepted techniques. It wasn't.

They also continue to ignore the fact that there was - and there remains - a very real possibility that the fragment samples were contaminated in some way - some of us have expounded on this a few weeks ago. We simply cannot, if we have open minds, assume that the full rigour of current practice in the handling of samples was current in the early 60s - even if a naive judge did come to that conclusion. My own reading of the judgement is that he did not understand the hazards of the LCN technique; which in fairness almost no-one did then.

We should be a little wiser now.

Hi Sara

Good points well made. I have read every post on both threads and got rather lost in the science but have not found (or remembered) an answer as to why no other DNA was found from anyone other than VS, MG and JH.

I recall Vic's analogy of the hundreds and thousands and it seems very odd that Hanratty's DNA should completely cover other traces of DNA except Valerie's (can't recall if MG's DNA was identified on that sample). I know there is some argument too about the size of fragment taken as a sample.

At the moment I cannot decide whether to believe in the results or not. But, prior to accessing this thread, I would have had no reason to doubt the DNA 'findings' at all. I very much welcome being further enlightened in all aspects of this case either way. I know the Police suspended use of the LCN testing - as an interim measure to consider implications of the Omagh case but this was over year ago. Is the suspension still in place does anyone know?

Given the increasing doubts about the LCN technique I wonder why there appears to have been little or no obvious follow up by the Hanratty family in the last few years.

all the best

viv
Viv