a6 murder

[reg1965]

Mr Miller in his book argues that Hanratty Rhyl alibi had no substantiating evidence excluding the statements of the boarding house ladies etc. He cites that fact that Hanratty does not mention at all going into the betting shop or the pub opposite Mrs Jones house.

Whilst it is hard to argue from the negative to the positive, there is intriguing evidence still to be resolved. Mr Parry, the Landlord of the Windsor Hotel admits that he made a statement to the Police at the time. But will not reveal what it said and I think that no one has found out what it did say yet. Another example of the Police perhaps holding back evidence. Now this is speculation, but if Mr Parry said in his statement that he had not seen anyone at all looking like Hanratty in his Hotel on the Tuesday night of the murder, it is a reasonable asumption to make, that the Police would have by now, if not then in time have revealed this to belittle the alibi even more. People do not make a statement willingly or forcibly and say nothing!! Thus one wonders what exactly Mr Parry say in his statement at the time. The fact that he did not cooperate with anyone after, to say yeh or nay, does not necessarily reveal that he said nothing that would have helped Hanratty as many people do not want to get more involved in anything, despite justice possibly being skewered. The 'do not get' involved syndrome is often more prevalent than good citizenship.

Hi John
What an excellent post, I apologise for not responding earlier.

I agree wholeheartedly.

I submit further; how many more people from Rhyl to come forward in the 1960's would it have taken for a successful appeal then?

Kind regards
Reg

[Tony]

Hi Tony,

What about Derek Bentley?

Hodgson and Kisko were both freed because DNA evidence proved them innocent. If DNA evidence is as worthless as Reg has suggested then should they be locked back up again? (I realise Kisko has since died a free man) That's the outstanding question on the DNA thread - "Can DNA evidence only be used to prove someone is innocent?"

Are you suggesting that Hanratty's parents and brother should have "made more noise"?

Hodgson is reportedly going to be getting half a million. That's not a particularly small figure for what boils down to a false confession.

"Corpses don’t get pay outs and they are easier to deal with." means that it should be easier to acknowledge Hanratty's innocence than Hodgson's, so again, if Hanratty was innocent then they would say so.

KR,
Vic.

Where do you get the idea that Stepan Kisko was cleared by DNA evidence?

Again a fantasy. Totally incorrect.

I’m away for a few days but you might want to research the real facts.

Tony.

[Victor]

Where do you get the idea that Stepan Kisko was cleared by DNA evidence?

Again a fantasy. Totally incorrect.

It was DNA testing of the semen on the body that was checked with Kisko and it was discovered his sperm was headless, so it could be him. Someone else was subsequently convicted on the DNA evidence.

[Victor]

I am not a mind reader me old darling. Pray tell.

What? This thread is about one person so there's not even a group to select from.

If an unscrupulous liar was inside for something he didn't do, don't you think he would rather 'fess up and get out sooner that rot in jail...his lying skills would suit him better out than in.

That's a convoluted bastardisation of the argument. If an unscrupulous liar was in jail for something he did do, then there is no incentive for him to confess unless he gets privileges.

I hear and read this argument frequently and it is another of those well worn fallacies.

Simply; if an innocent person is in jail then the real murderer is free to commit murder again.

So perhaps your question would be better put as "Is it better to imprison an innocent man for a crime than no one at all?" If the latter, then the police clear up rates would take a bit of a hit!

I can sort of see what you are getting at, but you are talking about 1 specific crime, rather than all crimes. True for every innocent person in jail then there is someone getting away with murder but it could be the same person multiple times, or more likely someone locked up for another crime, however, there are also many more guilty murderers locked up and our society is significantly better for it.

If we did it your way then why bother having a police force at all? Just let everyone do what they want.

You just have to take the Hanratty case as an example, a murder and rapist was successfully removed from society despite the doubt at the time, therefore the system does work.

KR,
Vic.

[reg1965]

Hi all

It may been posted before but here is a piece from the Mirror on 23/1/62

It is an absolute travesty that the prosecution withheld VS's statement that said "my memory of this man is fading" from the defence until 1971. Nine years after Hanratty was dispatched into the pit.

What can anyone say about this?

Reg

[reg1965]

Hi All
If anyone believes that DNA testing in the lab is contamination free then perhaps they should have a quick shufty at this total balls up from Germany.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7966641.stm

Remember if you are innocent you have nothing to fear. Sleep well.

Reg

[jimarilyn]

Hi All
If anyone believes that DNA testing in the lab is contamination free then perhaps they should have a quick shufty at this total balls up from Germany.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7966641.stm

Remember if you are innocent you have nothing to fear. Sleep well.

Reg

Hi Reg,

Just finished reading that BBC News article and I must say it makes extremely interesting reading. Well spotted.

regards,
James

[Sara]

The cover of Woffinden shows Hanratty's eyes can appear dark.
That simple fact destroys any arguments concerning the Identikit's eyes not matching Hanratty.
Therefore the assumption highlighted above is just wrong.

Vic, the several pages of posts in which you keep repeating this point back in Feb is a typical instance of why I gave up reading this thread over the last six weeks. It's a kind of trolling, to just go on and on repeating the same denials of perfectly valid points, with nothing new to offer (you are not the only culprit btw).

In this case, as in so many others, you are in any case barking up totally the wrong tree, and failing to understand what is under your nose. I was a picture researcher / picture editor for many years, and as my early speciality was modern history, in that time I spent a lot of time in the old press agencies handling news prints (10 x 8 b/w photos) of the period.

It was VERY COMMON at the time for photos to be enhanced, usually by drawing or painting directly on the prints in either white or black, to aid 'definition' and make them look sharper. This happened often enough in newspapers, and almost inevitably happened if a photo was used for a book cover, right up until the late 1970s - many was the row I had with art directors and designers for their desecration of borrowed b/w prints. The metal filing cabinets in all the press depots were full of such doctored photos, and photos of doctored photos - it was common in those days to copy the one original print, the negs being stored elsewhere (if not lost, or still with the photographer)

There is therefore no way that you should assume that the photo used on the cover for which you provided the link, is in an original state. It's almost certain that the eyes were 'coloured in' to make them stand out more on the cover.

[jimarilyn]

Hi Sara,

May I offer you a warm welcome back to the thread. Your very perceptive and incisive posts make compulsive reading. I'm sure I speak for a lot of others in saying that you have been missed. I hope you stick around to offer your thoughts, feelings and insight.

regards,
James

[burkhilly]

Sara

I'll second James. I really enjoyed reading your previous posts, which were well written in terms of thought and logic. Please keep posting!

I now just accept that some on the thread are 100% sure of JH's guilt, whilst others are 100% sure of JH's innocence. I was 100% sure of JH's guilt when I first joined the thread, but over the last three months I've read about DNA testing and in particularly LCN DNA testing - and am now on the side of JH possibly being innocent. The relevant word is "possibly" and this keeps me interested. I want to be 100% sure either way, which in the long-term is highly unlikely.


Reg

Thanks for that article - I know it wasn't funny but it did make me laugh and prove the point of how easy contamination occurs with DNA.

[Sara]

Thanks guys, I've missed you too (tho not a few other people LOL). I was quite busy with some big race meetings (work) and I'm also about to be made homeless, whcih is a bit of a bummer... and gets in the way of things I want to do (like read Casebook )

I'm not 100% convinced JH was innocent, for the record, but I think there are grave doubts still over the conviction, and many grounds for thinking Alphon was involved. All the strange links, coincidences and anomalies make the whole case utterly fascinating. I wish we had some link to Alphon's executors, and to whoever cleared out his flat... Is Reg on the case???

[Sara]

PS On taking another long hard look at the bookcover of 'Who Killed Hanratty', I'm undecided if it's a photo of Alphon which has been doctored to look a bit like Hanratty, or one of Hanratty whcih has been retouched to look like Alphon

[reg1965]

Thanks guys, I've missed you too (tho not a few other people LOL). I was quite busy with some big race meetings (work) and I'm also about to be made homeless, whcih is a bit of a bummer... and gets in the way of things I want to do (like read Casebook )

I'm not 100% convinced JH was innocent, for the record, but I think there are grave doubts still over the conviction, and many grounds for thinking Alphon was involved. All the strange links, coincidences and anomalies make the whole case utterly fascinating. I wish we had some link to Alphon's executors, and to whoever cleared out his flat... Is Reg on the case???

Hi Sara
Your life is a rollercoaster at the mo by the sound of it!

Regarding Alphon, I passed on the news of his death to Bob Woffinden who was unaware of it at the time. Bob could not find out anymore from Private Eye where the information must have been phoned in to. That's as far as it goes for now.

Regards
Reg

[reg1965]

PS On taking another long hard look at the bookcover of 'Who Killed Hanratty', I'm undecided if it's a photo of Alphon which has been doctored to look a bit like Hanratty, or one of Hanratty whcih has been retouched to look like Alphon

Hi Sara
If you mean the 1988 edition of Foot designed by Robert Purnell, I am certain that it is the same as photgraph nine (Hanratty) in the book between pages 144 and 145. The picture looks as if it has been stretched vertically for the cover.

Regards
Reg

[reg1965]

Hi all
In Alphons Paris interview he said that he used an automatic weapon.

When pushed...he also said he only fired one shot into Gregsten and that he fired 5-6 shots and never reloaded HIS GUN?!!.

The bloke is a world class liar but none of this can be refuted by evidence brought at any judicial hearing, trial or appeal in the case.

What went on in that car?

Reg