a6 murder

[RonIpstone]

Hi Tony,

You could be right, Woffinden continues to push for further analysis and investiation and should anything turn up then I'll read it with interest - and that's one of the reasons why I'm still here.

From what I recall of Bob's last article published in the Oldie during the Summer, he pushes for further investigation but is not willing to fund it himself.

Ron
(Justice for all)

[Victor]

I do not believe James Hanratty was guilty and I strongly suspect that the case is not over just yet. There should be further developments soon from what I hear.

Hi Tony,

You could be right, Woffinden continues to push for further analysis and investiation and should anything turn up then I'll read it with interest - and that's one of the reasons why I'm still here. I do consider Hanratty to be guilty as charged because there is no strong evidence that he didn't do it. I realise some people believe there's no strong evidence that he did do it, and therein lies the discussion and deliberation.

To the Jimdiditites you have your victory; as you keep saying your case is proved beyond doubt. Yes you are indeed right in the eyes of the law, system call it what you want.

Yes it is a legal victory, but there are many technicalities to the case, which to my mind, need to be ironed out - another topic for discussion here.

But as can be seen by the content of this case life is very short so why do you waste your time debating with us, the flat earthers, as you like to call us?

Is life that short? Alphon lived to a ripe old age until last year, and Valerie is still alive. She has her justice, but don't you think it'd be even more tolerable for her if she knew more about why her lover was shot dead, herself raped and then shot. She definitely deserves better than the futile, malignant, repulsive and repetitive accusations that she perverted the law - I'm not saying that everyone in your camp makes them, but some do.

If you recall I only referred to those postulating a conspiracy theory involving the likes of Alphon, Ewer, Nudds and France as "Flat Earthers". I strongly believe that the evidence against Hanratty is stronger than the evidence against Alphon, and I find it deeply hypocritical to be arguing for Hanratty's innocence in terms of Alphon's (or Ewer's) guilt, the concept is as ridiculous as the concept of a Flat Earth. Everyone should be able to see the ships sinking over the horizon.

Would you really spend hours debating with the flat earth society? I don’t think so. Something about this case must cause you some concern.

Yes, everyone deserves the opportunity to be educated, and if not for continued debate and discussion then people would be left behind. I've often said that there are aspects of this case that cause concern - the apparently random, ridiculous and motiveless heist in the middle of nowhere, for instance.

Surely you must have better things to do with yourselves than engage with us (who you must think are idiots).
You have your victory so why do you continue?

The illiterate and uneducated are a drain on society and I think the most humane thing to do is to educate them, rather than leaving them to starve.

KR,
Vic.

[jason_c]

You echo my thoughts completely Tony. It is beyond my comprehension too why the dyed in the wool jimdiditites (who have recently been re-named jimmites by a couple of them) spend so much valuable time and energy expounding the 'establishment' view. If I were among their ranks I certainly wouldn't be wasting precious time trying to convince any doubters that officialdom were right. Either they are just argumentative by nature or they too have their doubts [without admitting it] that the very convenient and timely DNA LCN findings of 2002 are just a little too pat, given what is now known about that technique. They'll have to wait until the cows come home (whatever time that will be) before convincing me.

Your input and humour have been much missed, I know you've been a very keen student of this enigmatic case for almost 40 years and your knowledge and understanding of it are second to none.

I'm a proud flat-earther, as are a lot of folk who live in Holland. My local golf course is far from flat though, I must admit. Unlike the playing surface at Anfield which is very even.

regards,
James

Again, you want a one sided debate?

[Hatchett]

Maybe it's scientific evidence that the earth is really flat after all.

[jason_c]

We all here waiting for the further developments.

Ron
(Justice for all)

DNA tests are to be carried out which will prove Hanrattys innocence.

[babybird67]

those pesky further developments...

We all here waiting for the further developments.

Ron
(Justice for all)

That never materialise?

Like your parentheses Ron.

[RonIpstone]

I do not believe James Hanratty was guilty and I strongly suspect that the case is not over just yet. There should be further developments soon from what I hear.

We all here waiting for the further developments.

Ron
(Justice for all)

[jason_c]

I have enjoyed this debate immensely over the years and I have become friends, I hope, with some on here. I hope I have added something and maybe at times entertained you.

I do not believe James Hanratty was guilty and I strongly suspect that the case is not over just yet. There should be further developments soon from what I hear.

I have not contributed for some time because of the nastiness of the replies.

To the Jimdiditites you have your victory; as you keep saying your case is proved beyond doubt. Yes you are indeed right in the eyes of the law, system call it what you want.
But as can be seen by the content of this case life is very short so why do you waste your time debating with us, the flat earthers, as you like to call us?
Would you really spend hours debating with the flat earth society? I don’t think so. Something about this case must cause you some concern.

Surely you must have better things to do with yourselves than engage with us (who you must think are idiots).
You have your victory so why do you continue?

It is beyond me.

Tony.

(Justice for the 96)

To ensure these boards arent completely dominated by Hanratty defenders. Otherwise, the threads would be as impartial as a Paul Foot book.

[Limehouse]

Welcome back Tony. It's nice to see you posting again. We all used to be able to have a civil debate - both sides - but sadly no more.

I've got some ideas swirling round my head so may be I'll PM them to a few people to see what they think.

Meanwhile - keep the faith!

Julie

[jimarilyn]

I have enjoyed this debate immensely over the years and I have become friends, I hope, with some on here. I hope I have added something and maybe at times entertained you.

I do not believe James Hanratty was guilty and I strongly suspect that the case is not over just yet. There should be further developments soon from what I hear.

I have not contributed for some time because of the nastiness of the replies.

To the Jimdiditites you have your victory; as you keep saying your case is proved beyond doubt. Yes you are indeed right in the eyes of the law, system call it what you want.
But as can be seen by the content of this case life is very short so why do you waste your time debating with us, the flat earthers, as you like to call us?
Would you really spend hours debating with the flat earth society? I don’t think so. Something about this case must cause you some concern.

Surely you must have better things to do with yourselves than engage with us (who you must think are idiots).
You have your victory so why do you continue?

It is beyond me.

Tony.

(Justice for the 96)

You echo my thoughts completely Tony. It is beyond my comprehension too why the dyed in the wool jimdiditites (who have recently been re-named jimmites by a couple of them) spend so much valuable time and energy expounding the 'establishment' view. If I were among their ranks I certainly wouldn't be wasting precious time trying to convince any doubters that officialdom were right. Either they are just argumentative by nature or they too have their doubts [without admitting it] that the very convenient and timely DNA LCN findings of 2002 are just a little too pat, given what is now known about that technique. They'll have to wait until the cows come home (whatever time that will be) before convincing me.

Your input and humour have been much missed, I know you've been a very keen student of this enigmatic case for almost 40 years and your knowledge and understanding of it are second to none.

I'm a proud flat-earther, as are a lot of folk who live in Holland. My local golf course is far from flat though, I must admit. Unlike the playing surface at Anfield which is very even.

regards,
James

[Tony]

What on Earth!!!

I have enjoyed this debate immensely over the years and I have become friends, I hope, with some on here. I hope I have added something and maybe at times entertained you.

I do not believe James Hanratty was guilty and I strongly suspect that the case is not over just yet. There should be further developments soon from what I hear.

I have not contributed for some time because of the nastiness of the replies.

To the Jimdiditites you have your victory; as you keep saying your case is proved beyond doubt. Yes you are indeed right in the eyes of the law, system call it what you want.
But as can be seen by the content of this case life is very short so why do you waste your time debating with us, the flat earthers, as you like to call us?
Would you really spend hours debating with the flat earth society? I don’t think so. Something about this case must cause you some concern.

Surely you must have better things to do with yourselves than engage with us (who you must think are idiots).
You have your victory so why do you continue?

It is beyond me.

Tony.

(Justice for the 96)

[Natalie Severn]

Hanratty has been found guilty by eleven laymen and by judges. There has been no conflict of verdict.

Yes---but....
The 1961 trial had been set to go ahead in the Old Bailey because intense local interest and the risk of bias was considered likely to deprive Hanratty of a fair trial.As it was the defence team were shocked to be told it was to take place in Bedford after all--- just two weeks before the case was to be listed when they appeared at the Old Bailey ,fully expecting it to begin there.

Michael Sherrard:"I was left with suspicions that there had been manoeuvring behind the scenes for the trial to take place in the court where the prosecution was most likely to succeed".The decision was not negotiable.So the case was transferred.
The eleven just men you refer to are described thus by Michael Sherrard in his autobiography Wigs and Wherefores, of 2009:
"They[the Bedford jury] turned out to be exactly as described to this novice: all male.middle class,white,property owning gentry.From the outset,they appeared to be all too likely to live up to the bedford reputation of being of the notoriously,hard nosed hang-"em ,flog "em school of justice."............

regarding the Rhyl witnesses who came forward towards the end of the trial;

"The Police were in Rhyl before I had finished reading my statement"

and of the judge in Hanratty"s trial he has this to say:
....."The judge,Mr Justice Gorman,"was bursting himself to indicate to the jury that he did not think the case was strong enough"............
He gave the jury a perfectly good direction:


Mr Justice Gorman
"He does not have to prove his alibi.The failure or otherwise of the alibi does not make him guilty"



And after the 2002 ruling:

:MICHAEL SHERRARD: The public were cheated, the system was cheated. I don't regard myself as having been cheated. I, I'm really an intermediate player, but Hanratty was hanged. He was cheated. If the other material that was not disclosed to us would have made the difference, so it, it's fair to say that there seems to be a strong argument at least for saying that the trial was fatally flawed and the word fatal has a real significance in this context.

Norma

[babybird67]

something else i dont understand is...

the justice system is based on the premise 'innocent until proven guilty.'

To continually question a verdict after three separate examinations of the evidence is perverse. It says, I want to change the justice system so that it is 'innocent forever, despite trials, appeals and guilty verdicts.' One has to ask, at what point does one draw the line?

Hanratty has been found guilty by eleven laymen and by judges. There has been no conflict of verdict. All three verdicts by disparate groups of people have been guilty. It is disenfranchising victims of crime, for whom the justice system one would have thought exists, to keep perversely undermining a judgement which has been made three times. Nobody should be forced to go through a lifetime of cross examination like Ms Storie has...her only 'crime' was to be the one surviving victim of Hanratty's despicable crime. That original crime is bad enough; it is my honest belief that people who continue to support Hanratty despite the evidence and the judgements become, metaphorically, nothing better than his accomplices. I'm sorry but that is my honest view and it continues to offend and upset me.

[Limehouse]

I think there may be some mileage left if everyone tries to be civil.

I still think there is room for debate concerning the possibility that there is a completely unexplored candidate out there.

[Natalie Severn]

I think its time to call it a day,Graham.Well on here anyway!
All the Best,
Norma