a6 murder

[jimornot?]

Hi Graham and all

Further to my last message and the last sentence - Surely it matters not whether all agree as long as they personally treat you with respect and courtesy. Please?

I did not mean to imply we should not correct what we see as bad manners etc.

The irony of this is that there are so many intelligent people posting on this site yet they sometimes seem to write things that a) are arguing for the sake of it (good to let things go occasionally?) and worse, b) they write without (perhaps) thinking about what they may be saying or the way it may come across

Shame on all of us who have been guilty of that here and anywhere else! Let him without sin....

all the best

Viv

[Rob63]

Gentlemen,
Well, for me that's it. I've enjoyed most of the time I've spent on this thread, right from its conception on the old site, which now, for me at least, seems to belong to another, saner, more polite, age.
I've had enough now.
Goodbye.
Graham

That about sums it up for me as well I`m afraid, I only joined recently but the personal animosity between some people on this thread is not achieving anything.
Bye Bye

[Limehouse]

I think it would be a great loss to the thread if Graham and Rob stop posting. Both of them have made a huge contribution and both offer rational, largely unemotive arguments. They are also very supportive and encouraging to other contributors to the thread.

I have found that a break from posting on this thread is sometimes necessary, especially when arguments have become heated and unpleasant. I hope Graham and Rob will reconsider their decision, perhaps take a breather, and return to us when things have cooled down.

This whole case is sad enough. Let's not perpetuate that sadness.

[jimornot?]

Hi Reg,

I take no responsibility for what you infer from my post quoting someone else's opinion, if you want to take half a sentence and interpret it in isolation then that's entirely up to you.

KR,
Vic.

Hi Vic

don't want to add to the sad turn this forum has taken over past few weeks but if you didn't mean to cause offence (and i don't believe that was your intention) then, whether you think the reaction is appropriate or not, it makes sense to apologise for the fact that Reg and Jim (and probably others) HAVE been offended by your posting.

You have been the subject of an upsetting message before but you reacted very well to that. I hope this situation can be defused as swiftly - the forum deserves to continue with polarised views and, across the board, sensible reactions to those expressing alternative viewpoints.

just an opinion - offered in good faith

all the best

Viv

[jimornot?]

I think it would be a great loss to the thread if Graham and Rob stop posting. Both of them have made a huge contribution and both offer rational, largely unemotive arguments. They are also very supportive and encouraging to other contributors to the thread.

I have found that a break from posting on this thread is sometimes necessary, especially when arguments have become heated and unpleasant. I hope Graham and Rob will reconsider their decision, perhaps take a breather, and return to us when things have cooled down.

This whole case is sad enough. Let's not perpetuate that sadness.

Hi Julie

Agree 100% and I think it was appopriate to highlight the importance of everyone being supportive and encouraging to other contributors.

All the best

Viv

[jimornot?]

Dear all,

last one from me for a short while (away).

Whilst I understand the passions invoked in this case, I don't follow why things get overheated at all. There is lots of talk about hard evidence but surely this case is interesting precisely because there is reason to offer opposing viewpoints. Balance is important in all things and just for illustration below, I put forward opinions as to why I CHOOSE to consider the possibility of Hanratty’s innocence but I fully accept others will have perfectly acceptable arguments some of which I have tried to pre-empt. I am afterall still something of a fence-sitter

Taking 3 main pieces of ‘hard’ evidence – DNA, Identification and the gun….

1. There is less confidence in LCD DNA testing in some quarters which allows for doubt to exist. That said, it doesn't necessarily mean the results in this case are actually false.

2. VS's I/D of Hanratty. To me, that process is flawed for reasons described by others. Valerie is certain she is right but many of us feel one of the Identikit images (the first one I think) looks like Alphon (and interestingly some time ago Jimarilyn posted another pic of Alphon that bore some resemblance to the other picture which, to me, had a closer likeness to Hanratty). But that is a subjective opinion.

3. As for the gun (plus hanky) - I happen to think it was planted on the bus but of course none of us know that for a fact. It is an opinion - not provable either way but I would not expect to be shot down in flames over it. But even if you accept my point of view, it doesn't automatically follow Hanratty did not use the gun.

On less ‘definitive’ evidence, to focus on the dishonesty of the Ingledene landlady is a choice to help discredit her evidence but in turn, I might question the validity of that view by asking who of us has not broken the law eg driving over the speed limit? Would this really make us a less credible witness in a murder trial? And then there is other context eg of other witnesses potentially substantiating the alibi. (Never yet seen a convincing verification of Alphon’s alibi incidentally)

Then again I do not believe there is reason for the establishment to perpetuate a cover-up after all this time. Many miscarriages have been acknowledged so is there any reason why this one should be any different? Not feasible to me

I don’t see why people are sometimes labelled as blinkered just because they
are not convinced by another viewpoint. My counter arguments would never intentionally be a personal attack, just me exercising my right to freedom of speech.

Not trying to preach although I seem to be doing that. But it is sad and so unnecessary for us to lose 2 valuable contributors

Very best wishes to all

Viv

[Limehouse]

Brillinat post Viv. Just what this thread needs - rational, reasoned and politely-argued debate.

[simon]

I think we should accept that this case will probably never be wrapped up to everybody's satisfaction....in a way, that's the appeal of the thing, isn't it ? Graham - whether you agree with him not, has been one of the most impressive posters : like him, I'm turned off by the kind of language that's used here nowadays, and it's enough to make me, too, weary of the discussion. Some of you are far more knowledgable than I about the A6 murder - yet you can't resist slagging each other off in vicious terms, and I'm sure most of us find that a real turn-off. What a shame.

[Tony]

I think we should accept that this case will probably never be wrapped up to everybody's satisfaction....in a way, that's the appeal of the thing, isn't it ? Graham - whether you agree with him not, has been one of the most impressive posters : like him, I'm turned off by the kind of language that's used here nowadays, and it's enough to make me, too, weary of the discussion. Some of you are far more knowledgable than I about the A6 murder - yet you can't resist slagging each other off in vicious terms, and I'm sure most of us find that a real turn-off. What a shame.

Morning to you Simon, Julie Limehouse and Viv,

Three very good posts from three very good contributors.

I think, as Simon says, that the case will never be concluded to everyone’s satisfaction and I must agree that is its fascination.
I have studied the case myself for 38 years and have driven my wife and mates daft about it at times so much so that they are all pretty well clued up on it themselves. For instance last Thursday as soon as I went into the pub one of my mates came straight over to me (this is not unusual because he always expects me to get a round in) and announced the death of Peter Alphon. So he must Google the case from time to time and although he says he is not interested in it I think he secretly is.
If I try to discuss it with him he simply relies: “DNA. Is it your round?”

And that is one thing that puzzles me; if you accept the DNA results why would you bother posting on here at all? Your one and only answer to me would only have to be: “DNA”.
I don’t know how to argue against that but I can argue about all the strange events, coincidences, police cover-ups etc. And I enjoy it.
I have enjoyed battling with Graham and Rob has been brilliant.

Simon with regards to your “yet you can't resist slagging each other off in vicious terms, and I'm sure most of us find that a real turn-off. What a shame.”:
First of all I would hate to think you included me in that statement.

Secondly, and I think the majority of the complaints have been directed at two particular individuals, and they must know who they are; they should give us all and each other a rest and perhaps not contribute for a month by which time they will have cooled off hopefully and the thread will not be lost. It is a distinct possibility that, at this rate, it will be lost to us all.

If I fall into this category, Simon, I will disappear for a month as well.

All the best everybody.

Tony.

[simon]

Hi Tony,
No, I wasn't getting at you..in fact I respect eveybody who contributes to this debate ; we all have interesting points to make, no matter which side we're on. But when it descends to vitriol it makes for uncomfortable, rather than intriguing, reading. With Steve and now Graham gone, I suspect Victor will feel even more isolated - and that won't improve matters. ( Personally ,because of DNA, I think JH probably did do it, but I'm prepared to be convinced otherwise.)

We await to see if Alphon left anything of interest. A note ? Something else ?

[burkhilly]

I've read so much on this crime over the last four weeks, that my head is in a spin with the facts and fiction that make up the A6 Murder.

Firstly I must state that VS has all my smypathy, because she has been critised on this site for identifying the wrong man. I cannot even begin to know how frightened and scared she must have been throughout the whole horrendous episode. Also MG had young children who are adults now, and live with this every day.

Having said that, this is a crime that is facinating. A crme which was in the public eye for so long, and surprisingly remains somewhat in the public eye.

What first struck me was the evidence from the identify parades which has proved to be notoriously unreliable. That said, VS was absolutely certain she had picked out the right man - and believes this 100%. She is not a liar but was she mistaken?

I've read through the entire thread and was very impressed by the knowledge shown by the various contributors. I've started out believing that JH had committed the crime, due to the DNA evidence. I then decided that the DNA evidence wasn't as clear cut as the experts would have us believe, and then started to believe that maybe JH was innocent. The following is my current view:

I have read the Court of Appeal outcome from 2002. What struck me was the fact that there appears to have been a couple of investigations into a possible miscarriage of justice, after which the conviction was considered safe. Clearly, based on the evidence available to the jury in 1961, the conviction was unsafe. So why was this? What do they know that has not been made public?

I do not think that JH was a likeable rogue, I think he was selfish and thought only of himself. That's my impression - however, the crime was violent and totally out of character to his past crimes.

With regards to the Rhyl alibi, I do not believe that the witness were lying - that is to say they believed it was JH on 22 August in Rhyl. However, there are other witnesses, who say they did not see him. (In particular I'm thinking about Mr Sayle (Alexi's dad) who stated that he was in the bathroom room on the night in question and therefore JH could not have stayed in the B&B.) JH was supposed to be in Liverpool on 21 August, which is believeable insofar as someone with a London accent would have been remembered. Was this JH or was it a friend of his? From getting off the train in Liverpool, to getting on a bus to Rhyl he certainly did lot - had a wash; went for a meal; with up to Scotland Road; came back to the city centre and spoke to a man in a snooker hall. This doesn't sit right.

The bullet cases found at the Vienna Hotel - only one other person had the room after JH. The cases had fallen to the back of the chair, so could have easily been overlooked during cleaning. The murder weapon being found on the back seat of a bus - surely no one is that stupid and therefore the weapon must have been placed there by someone else, perhaps someone who knew JH and wanted to ensure his implication in the A6 murder. Or didn't people know about ballastics then?

The DNA evidence which apparently confirms JH as the A6 rapist and murderer. I've read the DNA thread and the Court of Appeal Report. It is clear that there may have been some contamination. The knicker fragment was apparently stored with a vial of liquid (broken) and slides (PLA). However, one of the forensic scientists stated that the envelope containing the knicker fragment did not show any indication that it had been damaged at all. The only DNA on the fragment was VS, MG and JH. If JH was innocent, then surely there would have been an inidcation of someone else's DNA? Or weren't they looking for this.

I have today watched a programme called "Great Trials and Crimes". It was on for about half an hour. Wasn't that good but did include a couple of interviews with the student (John Kerr) and Alcott. Both described the assailant as having deepset brown eyes! It looked to me like the interviews had taken place shortly after the discovery of VS and MG. Saw JH's mum and dad and some pictures of them campaigning for an enquiry - sad!

So do I now think that JH is innocent or guilty - I don't know for sure. Part of me really wants JH to be innocent and some of the evidence does point to this. However, other evidence points to JH being guilty, particularly the DNA evidence.

Even though I was in Liverpool on 21 August 1961, I was just over a week old and was more interested in eating and sleeping!!! I'd love to go back in time as an adult and follow JH around and see where he went and who he saw - not going to happen though!

[Limehouse]

Terrific post Burkilly. I really enjoyed reading it. We need more of this type of post to save the thread.

[Victor]

You posted the quote by this Ally individual and should take responsiblilty for it in the context that it was posted.

I take full responsibility for my post.

You have by association of your own actions in posting this quote compared those of us who believe in Hanratty's innocence to holocaust deniers.

Not true. You need to read the quote again.

I should sue you because it is not true. It is deeply offensive to me as I am Jewish.

Read it again.

You and others who only believe in Hanratty's guilt via the DNA can hide behind the DNA evidence safe in your own little bunker that you arguments must be right.
You can pooh pooh everything and when shown up can just shout DNA and be right.

Sort of. The DNA evidence is a massive stumbling block that you keep falling over.

I was right about you from the start. I am not alone in believing this either.

Well considering your judgment concerning Hanratty, I'm actually quite happy that you think negatively of me. I take it as a compliment.

Following your post #3311 quoted above the apology you give better be f*cking good and be f*cking quick.

I see no need.

KR,
Vic.

[jimarilyn]

Good evening Jimarilyn,

You know I haven’t the first idea what this DNA business is all about but several posters on here are saying about the stains on the gusset of the knickers. Now you are brilliant at quickly putting your hand on evidence previously submitted and I can’t find it at the moment. But didn’t the first nurse to help Valerie in the hospital say she was wearing her underwear in a strange way? It’s definitely in one of the books but I’m stuck at the moment.
Thanks,

Tony.

Hi Tony,

Sorry I'm a bit late (only 6 months !) in getting back to you on this point. I'm re-reading Jean Justice's fine book "Murder vs Murder " at the moment and on page 74 Justice writes..It is significant here that one of the nurses from the Bedford General Hospital said in evidence at Ampthill that the state and position of Valerie's knickers indicated that the girl had not been raped in the classical sense of the word.

Incidentally 47 years ago today James Hanratty was convicted and sentenced to death.


regards,
James

[Tony]

Hi Tony,

Sorry I'm a bit late (only 6 months !) in getting back to you on this point. I'm re-reading Jean Justice's fine book "Murder vs Murder " at the moment and on page 74 Justice writes..It is significant here that one of the nurses from the Bedford General Hospital said in evidence at Ampthill that the state and position of Valerie's knickers indicated that the girl had not been raped in the classical sense of the word.

Incidentally 47 years ago today James Hanratty was convicted and sentenced to death.


regards,
James

Hello James,

Watched your contributions on Youtube over the weekend and really enjoyed the programme; it was very sad for everyone concerned.

I am really glad you found the statements that I had been searching for concerning the positioning of Valerie’s underwear.

Now what does it mean and what significance has it to the DNA evidence?
I have just re-read it half a dozen times and I can not make out why the nurse would say such a thing and go so far as to say it under oath. Maybe I lead too sheltered a life and may need the help of someone like Limehouse to help me out on this one.
But anyone’s thoughts would be appreciated.

Tony.