a6 murder

[jimarilyn]

Good morning to you Reg,

The only place I have ever seen mention about the Alsatian dog is contained within the Hawser Report.

You will know that Mr C Lewis Hawser was asked by Roy Jenkins to review the case in 1974 in the light of Paul Foot’s book PF’s book came out in 1971 after several articles by him in Private Eye and a serialisation of his book prior to publication in the Sun Newspaper. (About the only bit of news that I can ever recall in that ‘newspaper’).


Mr Hawser presented his report in July 1975 so nobody seemed to be in much of a hurry.

Paul Foot, as far as I am aware, had never previously mentioned Mrs Walker’s dog. It is first, again as far as I am aware, mentioned by Hawser on page 68 items 276, 277 & 278.

Item 276 deals with how JH told his father about seeing the Alsatian and how his father remembered seeing a photo at Mrs Walker’s house.

Item 277 deals with a letter to Hawser from the Hanratty’s solicitor’s, Bindman’s, which included a letter from Mrs Walker’s solicitors dated 11th Feb 1975. In the letter Mrs Walker confirms she owned an Alsatian from 1954-1964 and Hanratty stroked it after finding out that it would not bite him.
Mrs Walker said she felt it strange that Hanratty never mentioned the dog in court.
Mr Hanratty Snr said his son had mentioned the dog incident in court.

Item 278 says the dog was not mentioned in court nor was it referred to in any of Mrs Walker’s statements at the time. Hawser says he is surprised that Hanratty did not mention it in court if the incident actually occurred.

A few observations here: Mrs Walker did own such a dog at the relevant time, she confirms Hanratty’s story about it but that is the last we hear of it until the Hawser report 14 years later.
Paul Foot went though the Hawser Report with a fine tooth comb and when he updated his own book does not give it a mention. I get the impression that Hawser included the incident somewhat reluctantly but had to because of the letter from Bindman’s. But it seems a solid bit of evidence to me. You could hardly accuse Mr Hanratty Snr of leading his son after he himself saw a photo of the dog because no great fuss seems to have been made of it at the time. Nor was it presented at the appeal. All very strange.

It has never been referred to ever again by either Foot or Woffinden but for a reason known only to himself it was brought into the public domain by Lewis Hawser who seemed to have Hanratty down as guilty before he even put pen to paper.

Tony

Hi Tony,

A most interesting and illuminating post.
I have never read the Hawser Report only comments about it.
The alsatian incident seems a powerful piece of evidence to me too and only serves to consolidate Hanratty's already impressive Rhyl alibi.

I also get the strong impression that Hawser had Hanratty down as guilty long before he put pen to paper and that absolutely nothing was going to dissuade him from his Establishment stance.

It seems an appropriate time to attach the following Daily Mirror article from April 11th 1975 concerning this (dare I say another whitewash ?) official report.


regards,
James

[Limehouse]

James wrote: I am not related in any way to James Hanratty and therefore have no ulterior motive/agenda for believing in and proclaiming his innocence. Something however draws me powerfully to this case and it is never that far from my thoughts. Through reading all the various books written about the case I feel as if I have come to know James Hanratty well. You quite rightly point out that he was no angel (he admitted as much himself during his trial evidence) but that does not mean he changed overnight from a car thief/burglar into a cold blooded rapist and murderer. I don't believe he had it in his character/make-up to be such


Hi everyone,

Despite the events of recent weeks I do think that James' point (underlined above) is an important point. I have said before that our understanding of Hanratty may well be coloured by books we have read that have tended to highlight the more attractive aspects of his character and play down his ciminality. It is also true that the only information we have about his criminality is that for which he was caught and charged. There may have been a darker side to his crimes that has not been uncovered. However, many of us have a gut feeling that Hanratty was probably not capable of a motiveless rape and murder. I strongly feel that IF he was involved - there were other people involved too. I would not care to speculate on who the 'others' might be - and I do not think they will ever come crawling out of the shadows.

Enjoy the rest of your weekend everyone (it's been lovely here - I've been cutting the grass and weeding the garden! Beautifully warm sun has lifted my mood no end).

[Limehouse]

Has anyone seen this article from The Independent in 1998 that claims Vlerie Storie is dead?

I thought she was still alive?? It came from http://www.independent.co.uk/news/dn...e-1149512.html


DNA clue in Hanratty murder case

Andew Buncombe

Wednesday, 11 March 1998
Share Digg It del.icio.us Facebook Reddit Print Article Email Article Text Size
NormalLargeExtra LargeNEW DNA evidence could finally prove beyond doubt that James Hanratty was guilty of the notorious 1961 A6 murder.

The 36-years campaign by Hanratty's family to posthumously clear his name has become a cause celebre and the Criminal Cases Review Commission is currently investigating the case. But it was reported last night that new tests carried out on genetic samples found on the underwear of one of the victims, closely resemble DNA taken from Hanratty's relatives.

To be conclusive, Hanratty's body may have to be exhumed so that further DNA tests can be carried out on his remains.

Hanratty was hanged in 1962 after being found guilty of the murder of government scientist Michael Gregsten and the rape and shooting of his mistress Valerie Storie at Deadman's Hill in Bedfordshire. Ms Storie survived and although she later picked Hanratty from an identity parade, she admitted in 1995 - shortly before she died - that she was no longer convinced he was the guilty man.
The day before Hanratty was hanged in April 1962 he told his family in a letter: "I'm dying tomorrow but I am innocent. Clear my name." His late father was famous for his efforts on his son's behalf and he was famously photographed with a placard claiming that his son had been 200 miles away at the time.

If the claims - that tests carried out by the Government's forensic science service have linked Hanratty's DNA to the scene - prove true, it will be a tremendous blow to his family. It was reported last night that Hanratty's brother Michael said he still thought him to be innocent. He said that the family would have to consider very carefully any request to exhume the body.

The Home Office last night declined to comment. The Criminal Cases Review Commission was unavailable.

[reg1965]

Has anyone seen this article from The Independent in 1998 that claims Vlerie Storie is dead?

I thought she was still alive?? It came from http://www.independent.co.uk/news/dn...e-1149512.html

Hi Julie
Mr Buncombe (or bunkum it really should be!) is confusing or mixing togther Valerie Storie and Janet Gregsten, who died on 19th January 1995.
Reg

[jimarilyn]

Hi Julie
Mr Buncombe (or bunkum it really should be!) is confusing or mixing togther Valerie Storie and Janet Gregsten, who died on 19th January 1995.
Reg

Hi Julie/Reg,

Yes, that's absolutely correct. It was a careless piece of journalism by the Independent reporter. Miss Storie would have been highly amused had she have read the Independent that day.

regards,
James

[Limehouse]

Hi Julie
Mr Buncombe (or bunkum it really should be!) is confusing or mixing togther Valerie Storie and Janet Gregsten, who died on 19th January 1995.
Reg

Hi Reg and Jim,

I did wonder if that was the case as I knew Janet Gregsten was dead but was 99% sure Valerie was not.

You expect better from The Independent don't you?

[jimornot?]

Valerie Storie

Dear all

Back in this thread, Steve (I think it was) posted what was then arecent picture of Valerie

I'll see if I can find the post number

atb

Vv

[jimornot?]

In researching my family history I made contact with a distant relative, a young man who was having great difficulty in getting the co-operation of family members and couldn't understand why it was so difficult to get answers.

Last Sunday I googled the somewhat unusual family name and landed on this site. I was astonished to discover that he is the grandson of Carole France, the daughter of Dixie France. He doesn't know this yet but I've left a message to get back in touch.

He has not had contact with his grandparents since he was a baby. I found his grandfather last year (who married Carole France shortly after Hanratty's trial) and put the two of them in touch for the first time. As far as I am aware none of this story came up in conversation.

while trying to find the post by Steve (re Valerie Storie's pic) I saw this one. Did this ever get any further - Paul only posted this one but there were later posts by someone who knew Carole France

ATB

Viv

[jimornot?]

valerie storie

Dear all

Back in this thread, Steve (I think it was) posted what was then arecent picture of Valerie

I'll see if I can find the post number

atb

Vv

It was post 372

[jimornot?]

valerie storie

Dear all

Back in this thread, Steve (I think it was) posted what was then arecent picture of Valerie

I'll see if I can find the post number

atb

Vv

It was post 372 page 38

[jimornot?]

the 2nd statement by Mr Nudds

Nudds 2nd statement is the one where he colluded and conferred with "his wife" and they gave matching statements.

The 3rd statements were made without the possibility of collusion and denied the 2nd statements.

The Hotel records could match either statement and give no extra corroboration to either.

KR,
Vic.

Hi all

I remember reading a bit on this some time ago and found the Hansard link http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/l...james-hanratty

there are a couple of statements in that eg (para 1546) '...But it is not correct to say that the hotel register, such as it was, corroborated the third statement; because, in fact, it corroborated, if it corroborated anything, the second statement....'

and a little later just after para 1548 it is stated that 'The only documents available corroborated statement No. 2. '.

that said, Lord Russell also mentions that he thinks the Jury did not place any particular emphasis on any of the statements and other factors / facts influenced their decision.

Nudds was a self confessed liar anyway but I have never been persuaded why statement 2 was dismissed so lightly. Probably answered by him in para 1548 -

In order to keep straight I have always wanted to help the police with information. When they came to the Vienna Hotel making inquiries about the murder I jumped to the conclusion that they wanted Durrant for the murder. After I and my wife had made our first statements, the police continued to question us and when we had said that Durrant had stayed that night in Room No. 6 this information did not fit in with their investigations. It was then that I decided that I could do myself a good turn by helping the police in an important job by giving them the information they appeared to want...'

the last sentence saying it all?

atb

Viv

[burkhilly]

Like many others on this thread, I totally believed in JH’s innocence up to the 2002 Court of Appeal Hearing, when the DNA evidence appeared to prove conclusively that JH had in fact been guilty all along. I then forgot about JH until recently, when quite by accident I came across this thread. I was surprised that there were still some who believed in JH’s innocence, given the DNA evidence. Not one to sit on the fence, I read right through the thread and then re-read Paul Foot’s book as well as other articles. It appears that many, many people believed that JH was innocent up until the DNA evidence; therefore I looked at DNA in terms of testing and was shocked by what I discovered.

A lot of contributors on this thread have firm views on JH’s innocence or guilt. I would like to put the following views forward in relation to the DNA evidence, because after reading about DNA, in particular LCN testing (used on the knicker sample and hankie), I am becoming convinced that JH was indeed innocent.

The first couple of paragraphs, which follow in italics, were taken from the 2002 Court of Appeal Document:


The file containing the fragment from the knickers was discovered in 1991 by Jennifer Wiles. It was still packaged as described except that the cellophane package was no longer intact. Also found in the file were some broken slides and slide holders possibly having contained hairs and fibres collected at the scene of the murder. There were also two polythene bags each containing hairs thought now to have come from Alphon. There was another polythene bag containing a number of bullets and significantly, so Mr Mansfield submits, a polythene bag containing a small rubber bung and fragments of glass including a curved piece suggesting that the polythene bag had at one time contained a glass vial or tube.

• Mr Roger Mann, who has thirty-two years experience as a forensic scientist, gave evidence that he has never come across a vial or tube containing liquid being retained on a file and we are bound to say that, without having any kind of scientific experience at all, it would seem a curious method of storage. Mr Greenhalgh, who saw the file and examined the fabric in 1995, told us that he considered the risk of contamination to the fabric to be very low. We quote from his evidence.
"As I examined the item, the piece of blue material from the knickers was in a sealed packet inside the two envelopes. I did not observe any damage to that packaging which I considered likely to be a risk of contamination. As far as I was concerned they were sealed, although the outer envelopes were not sealed there was no indication of any liquid damage on the brown paper envelopes, as might have been expected if a liquid sample had leaked onto them."

In the first paragraph is states that the cellophane packet “was no longer in tact”, and yet Mr Mann states that the packet was sealed. What’s correct? There is also the statement “thought to have come from Alphon” thought is just not good enough; this should have been conclusively checked. Two anomalies? Evidence of contamination? A resounding yes from me!

The report states that there were other samples stored with the knicker sample, not least the possible liquid from the broken vial. This is believed to be a “wash” from JH’s trousers. Something which has been stored, even satisfactory, for over 40 years would not be pristine. Has anyone ever seen record storage facilities? I have and they are not the best conditions for keeping this type of evidence. Even one tiny particle of matter can cause contamination for LCN DNA testing purposes – a small drop of the liquid for example – would not cause too much noticeable damage to the packet. In fact natural aging to the envelopes could have hidden any sign of liquid seepage.

The DNA from the hankie is not in question – it is JH’s. However, the DNA found on the knicker sample was shown to be that of JH. It is unclear where the DNA came from it was just DNA, it has not been specified if this was semen or skin. DNA does degrade without doubt, so it is unlikely to have been skin. The smaller the sample the more difficult it is to identify. DNA LCN testing is far from the exact science I thought it was, as the following seems to suggest:

This time the experiment did produce results in that profiles were obtained both from the fabric and from the handkerchief which could be compared with samples taken from James Hanratty's brother, Michael, and his mother, Mary. These comparisons confirmed that the male contribution to the profiling from the knickers almost certainly came from either a son of Mary or a brother of Michael. It was also shown at a much lower level of probability that it was a son of Mary and a brother of Michael who had been responsible for depositing the mucus stains on the handkerchief.

The above taken from the CCRU document 2002.

Interesting that the knicker fragment DNA profiling showed that it came almost certainly from JH, whilst the hankie showed a much lower level of probability. Interesting point as the hankie was without doubt JH’s. Can anyone explain this anomaly?

The following is from a report by Dan Crane Micro Biologist Professor

Integrity of material
Even under the very best of circumstances (virtually the opposite of those that require ultra sensitive LCN testing to be attempted), the presence of a DNA profile usually says nothing about the time frame or circumstances under which the DNA was transferred to an item. Further, the chance of “innocent” DNA transfer greatly increases as the amount of starting material for DNA profiling tests becomes smaller. Quite simply, even if one’s DNA is found to be associated with an article of evidence, the great sensitivity of LCN testing causes very real questions to arise regarding both how and when that DNA was transferred.

DNA in quantities at LCN levels can easily be transferred from one article to
another (e.g. from evidence sample, onto the analyst’s lab coat or gloves, then to another evidence sample; or by having been stored together in a single package) – without the contributor having any knowledge that the transfer(s) has occurred. No DNA tests are currently able to distinguish between secondary transfer (such as the transfer of DNA through contamination events) or DNA present due to direct contact with an object.
Similarly, DNA tests are not currently capable of distinguishing in any way between the presence of DNA due to contamination (such as could very easily occur through storing or opening the objects in the same location as items obtained from an individual) or direct contact between an individual and the object. Given that LCN analyses can conceivably generate results from as little material as a single cell of an individual, the only way to be confident that results have not been obtained solely through contamination is to
demonstrate conclusively with continuity records that contamination is not even remotely possible.

What always bothered me was that no other DNA was reported at the time of the 2002 Court of Appeal Hearing. Were they looking for any other DNA? There is no mention of the DNA of VS or MG in the 2002 Report. Given that the hankie was handled by absolutely loads of people – interesting that they only found JH’s DNA. You see what I’m getting at – were they only looking for one person’s DNA?

I think that LCN DNA testing is ultimately based on professional opinion on the results. This is why I believed the DNA conclusive results in 2002 – because like to many others I believe what the experts tell me. It is only because I’ve taken the time to investigate DNA testing that I have changed my mind.

I do not believe VS was lying when she identified JH as the murderer – but as we now all know witness identification is notoriously unreliable, particularly 8 weeks after an event.

Then I look back to the Liverpool/Rhyl alibi – why did so many people identify JH? They can’t all have been jumping on the bandwagon. The Rhyl alibi has been unbreakable. Why did JH state he had been in Liverpool on the night on the murder, instead of telling the truth? Perhaps because he thought his mates would back him up, whereby in Rhyl he didn’t know anyone and couldn’t be sure they would remember him.

Furthermore, although JH wasn’t the brightest tool in the box, why tell VS to call him “Jim” (which she believed was not his real name). We also have the description – a couple of hours after the murder they were looking for someone with “deep set brown eyes”. I’ve seen the old news reels and this is mentioned twice. At the first identify parade the first suspect, Peter Alphon, who had deep set brown (hazel) eyes was one of those on the parade. If the first description was Blue Staring Eyes – why put him in the identity parade.

I would love some constructive feedback on the above views, particularly from Victor, who is convinced that JH is guilty and seems to know a lot about DNA testing. I would also appreciate feedback from the “voices of reason” Tony and Graham.

I tend to believe that the A6 Murder was a random attack and that the person who committed this dreadful crime is still out there, or perhaps dead. I believe it unlikely that Peter Alphon was involved in the crime, more likely he was a chancer who saw an opportunity to make some money. I would again reiterate that my sympathies remain with VS, the living victim of a horrendous crime and to MG’s family, particularly his now grown up children, who must have suffered over the years. As I’ve stated in previous posts, I do not think that JH was a likeable rogue – I suspect he was a thug. He was selfish and arrogant and thought only of himself – but I do not think he committed this crime.

Phew - I now need to lie down in a darkened roomfor a couple of hours!!!

[Tony]

James wrote: I am not related in any way to James Hanratty and therefore have no ulterior motive/agenda for believing in and proclaiming his innocence. Something however draws me powerfully to this case and it is never that far from my thoughts. Through reading all the various books written about the case I feel as if I have come to know James Hanratty well. You quite rightly point out that he was no angel (he admitted as much himself during his trial evidence) but that does not mean he changed overnight from a car thief/burglar into a cold blooded rapist and murderer. I don't believe he had it in his character/make-up to be such


Hi everyone,

Despite the events of recent weeks I do think that James' point (underlined above) is an important point. I have said before that our understanding of Hanratty may well be coloured by books we have read that have tended to highlight the more attractive aspects of his character and play down his ciminality. It is also true that the only information we have about his criminality is that for which he was caught and charged. There may have been a darker side to his crimes that has not been uncovered. However, many of us have a gut feeling that Hanratty was probably not capable of a motiveless rape and murder. I strongly feel that IF he was involved - there were other people involved too. I would not care to speculate on who the 'others' might be - and I do not think they will ever come crawling out of the shadows.

Enjoy the rest of your weekend everyone (it's been lovely here - I've been cutting the grass and weeding the garden! Beautifully warm sun has lifted my mood no end).

Good morning Julie,

I see you are on line right now. What an early bird you are.

Ah yes Springtime weeding your raised beds. You can’t beat it can you? I can feel the sap rising as I type.

Tony.

[Victor]

Hi Julie/Reg,

Yes, that's absolutely correct. It was a careless piece of journalism by the Independent reporter. Miss Storie would have been highly amused had she have read the Independent that day.

regards,
James

Hi James et al,

Now you see why I doubt some of those stories you've posted concerning initial reports of the attackers eye colour, etc.

If they can mistake who's died then what significance can be placed on the idfference between blue and brown eyes?

KR,
Vic.

[jimornot?]

newspaper reporting

Hi James et al,

Now you see why I doubt some of those stories you've posted concerning initial reports of the attackers eye colour, etc.

If they can mistake who's died then what significance can be placed on the idfference between blue and brown eyes?

KR,
Vic.

Hi Vic

I understand that it wasn't just the newspapers who quoted the eye colour (Burkhilly's last post quotes ..............."We also have the description – a couple of hours after the murder they were looking for someone with “deep set brown eyes”. I’ve seen the old news reels and this is mentioned twice. ..."

Additionally the police were sure of Alphon who I understand did not have the icy blue eyes.

Moving on from that, I thought I'd try taking, for a short while anyway, the view that maybe Jim did do it by reflecting on your comment in response to one of my posts where in hindsight you (choose to) see the coincidences as just that. I was thinking about the fact he got rid of his Hepworths jacket and it never showed up - if we were looking to find reasons why we should doubt his evidence we might be inclined to dismiss that as very convenient.

Then take the Rhy alibi - it is odd that (as far as I know) he never told anyone about that visit until late in the trial. Is there any reason why he would not have told say, the Frances on his return before he became a suspect?

ATB

Viv