a6 murder

[Victor]

Hi Vic good point but did the Police not try to present false evidence at the trial - ire a version of Kerr's notes - which might imply that his recollections were of some importance and potential influence?

Hi Viv,
That's a matter of opinion.

The police were told by the judge to find Kerr's note, and so they searched through all the papers from the day and managed to find "a" note that was presented to the court, but Kerr said it wasn't his because the handwriting wasn't his own. Now the real question is; was this new note a forgery or was it just another note from the day's events by some unidentified (presumably police) author. James and Reg appear to be of the opinion that it is a deliberate forgery and are using that as evidence to support their conspiracy theories, but they have no evidence for this whatsoever.

BTW is it conceivable only the jacket would have had incriminating stains?

It is possible, but considering that Hanratty put a blanket over the blood-soaked drivers seat before he sat on it, that's not necessarily inevitable.

There are strong indications that it wasn't visibly stained as Hanratty continued to wear it, but who knows what incriminating forensic information could have been found.

I think Vic is out or oder to assume you have no sympathy with Valerie Storie's situation

I think that's out of order. My recent post made it clear that I don't think they're maliciously attacking VS, I believe that their prime goal of proving Hanratty innocent causes them to neglect consideration for VS and put the rights of a dead murdering rapist above those of a living but crippled victim.

KR,
Vic.

[jimornot?]

Hi Viv,
That's a matter of opinion.

1. The police were told by the judge to find Kerr's note, and so they searched through all the papers from the day and managed to find "a" note that was presented to the court, but Kerr said it wasn't his because the handwriting wasn't his own. Now the real question is; was this new note a forgery or was it just another note from the day's events by some unidentified (presumably police) author. James and Reg appear to be of the opinion that it is a deliberate forgery and are using that as evidence to support their conspiracy theories, but they have no evidence for this whatsoever.


2. It is possible, but considering that Hanratty put a blanket over the blood-soaked drivers seat before he sat on it, that's not necessarily inevitable.

There are strong indications that it wasn't visibly stained as Hanratty continued to wear it, but who knows what incriminating forensic information could have been found.


3. I think that's out of order. My recent post made it clear that I don't think they're maliciously attacking VS, I believe that their prime goal of proving Hanratty innocent causes them to neglect consideration for VS and put the rights of a dead murdering rapist above those of a living but crippled victim.

KR,
Vic.

Hi Vic

Sorry I can't seem to break down the individual mesasges as you can so I numbered yours and reply as follows

1. It could well have been a note from the day as you say but it is a bit worrying that the original could not be found. Did Mr Kerr indicate the police 'version' contained wrong info? Again worrying if it did. But it could equally be just a coincidence that may or may not have any real bearing on the case. You, I and others just do not know.

As regards James and Reg thinking it was a fit up, it is perfectly reasonable for them to consider that, given the police conduct in some matters. Again it is their entitlement to hold that such a possibility exists. It doesn't put them in league with anyone really.

2. True about the stains but he couldn't be that confident either that the trousers wouldn't show some incriminating evidence. But speculation only

3. Perhaps your recent post did make it clear but I'm not so sure the original one did and it was that which created the small flurry of messages. The messages /implications were not addressed to me so I don't have any axe to grind on it but I felt it was not in order and although you can think 'so what' I think it perfectly fair for a neutral but interested party to say so. I will do the same in opposite circumstances (although I realise no-one on this thread, least of all you, needs me to do so).

To me, the issue is that you are very firm in your belief that H was a murdering rapist whilst others firmly believe otherwise. So, they do not see themselves as supporting a scumbag as you have, I think, described him before and then don't need to feel 'attacked' (can't think of a better phrase at moment but you know what I mean) for expressing an alternative viewpoint. By the same token, I just don't see where they put VS's rights in question by exercising a right to put over a view. If Hanratty was innocent as they believe, then he is a victim too. I know you do not subscribe to that view but some do and it is the exchange of info, views and questions which keeps this thread such a success surely?

But please don't let us go on about this, it is just my view and not meant to cause any offence. I am far more interested in the continuing challenges being made.

all the best

Viv

[Tony]

Hello Viv,

What a very level headed post if I may say so.

The whole point of a debate such as this is that there will be three factions: He did it, he didn’t do it, I don’t know if he did it or not. If that was not the case there is no discussion, no thread and no point.

I firmly believe James Hanratty was innocent; I believe Acott and Oxford messed up at the beginning of the investigation and then went to great lengths to obtain the conviction of James Hanratty. Someone to them who was expendable and society as a whole would be better off without. They could not just abandon the case at that stage. But when the investigative journalists started to turn up Acott virtually went into hiding. And why do you suppose there were so many investigating journalists about? Because there was something worth investigating.
Can anyone recall Oxford talking about the case afterwards?


So yes we are entitled to debate it from any angle we see fit. As he was found guilty and we believe him to be innocent we are entitled to question any or all of the witnesses and the police conduct etc. And yes again we have to listen to the other side and be respectful to their points of view.

But I do not think anything we have written merits us being described as in league with a rapist and murderer. That is not a fit comment to appear on a forum such as this.

I believe the murderer was Mr Alphon but just because someone on here disagrees with that I would not dream of saying they were in league with a rapist and murderer.

I think Walter Rowland who lived not far from me was hanged for something he did not do and it has happened before in the past. But I have never been branded anything for holding that belief by anyone.


I have said I sympathise with Valerie Storie, who wouldn’t, but I want to analyse her evidence and how I perceive she may have been manipulated and I will continue to do that.

I am a little more restrained than some on here, it’s called getting old, but I think Reg in particular has shown admiral restraint over the last couple of weeks. Well done Reg, six months ago I dread to think what your reactions would have been.

By the way Reg, and don’t blind me with science, but has there been any further progress regarding the DNA?


Tony.

[Victor]

Hi Vic

Sorry I can't seem to break down the individual mesasges as you can so I numbered yours and reply as follows

Hi Viv,
There's an icon that looks like a speech bubble, you highlight the bit you want seperate and press that. If you check that the start of the section has quote in square brackets, and the end has /quote in square brackets then that's it.

1. It could well have been a note from the day as you say but it is a bit worrying that the original could not be found. Did Mr Kerr indicate the police 'version' contained wrong info? Again worrying if it did. But it could equally be just a coincidence that may or may not have any real bearing on the case. You, I and others just do not know.

Well that's the issue.
Did the note exist? Almost certainly.
What happened to it? Kerr says he gave it to a policeman, but that's unconfirmed.
Did Kerr tell them it was important? Who knows?
Did Kerr get an acknowledgment of his handing in an important piece of evidence? Almost certainly not.

As regards James and Reg thinking it was a fit up, it is perfectly reasonable for them to consider that, given the police conduct in some matters. Again it is their entitlement to hold that such a possibility exists. It doesn't put them in league with anyone really.

No it's not reasonable. The police were trying hard to do their job - catch a murderer - and naturally they made some mistakes and overlooked other things, but there's no evidence for conspiracy and corruption.

The other side were doing the same... Hanratty refused to mention who he stayed with in Liverpool, and there's the whole Ambush Alibi of Rhyl.

2. True about the stains but he couldn't be that confident either that the trousers wouldn't show some incriminating evidence. But speculation only

It depends where the blood stains in the car were, if there were any.

To me, the issue is that you are very firm in your belief that H was a murdering rapist whilst others firmly believe otherwise. So, they do not see themselves as supporting a scumbag as you have, I think, described him before and then don't need to feel 'attacked' (can't think of a better phrase at moment but you know what I mean) for expressing an alternative viewpoint. By the same token, I just don't see where they put VS's rights in question by exercising a right to put over a view..

Post #3780 lists a number of reasons why I think James (in particular) has seriously maligned VS character.

Hanratty admitted a number of burglaries, and that puts him very much in the scumbag camp for me. The DNA evidence conclusively proves he's a rapist and murderer for a large proportion of people which confirms it.

If Hanratty was innocent as they believe, then he is a victim too. I know you do not subscribe to that view but some do and it is the exchange of info, views and questions which keeps this thread such a success surely?

Some aren't convinced he's a murderer but none can legitimately describe him as "innocent", maybe he deserved to die as a consequence of his other criminal activity.

But please don't let us go on about this, it is just my view and not meant to cause any offence. I am far more interested in the continuing challenges being made.

I want more viewpoints and discussion, I'm just sick and tired of myth and rumour being endlessly repeated. Even Woffinden concedes that the brown eyes fiasco is unfounded, but others won't let it die.

KR,
Vic.

[Graham]

Hi Tony,

I firmly believe James Hanratty was innocent; I believe Acott and Oxford messed up at the beginning of the investigation and then went to great lengths to obtain the conviction of James Hanratty.

Can you elaborate a bit on how the police 'messed up' at the beginning?

Someone to them who was expendable and society as a whole would be better off without

Such a statement is wholly baseless, unless you have absolute proof that Acott and Oxford viewed JH in this manner.

Can anyone recall Oxford talking about the case afterwards?

No, and Acott never said a great deal either. But I think it's probably policy for senior policemen not to discuss past cases, and particularly controversial ones, too openly. Acott said he thought is was a 'gas-meter jonb', i.e., an inside job.

I believe the murderer was Mr Alphon

Obviously you and everyone else are entitled to your opinion, but I've never seen any more proof that Alphon was guilty than I've seen proof that Hanratty was innocent. On what do you base your belief?

I'm not trying to be contentious or deliberately provocative, Tony, I'm seriously interested in your thoughts regarding the above, and what you can show me to try and convince me that Hanratty was innocent.

I don't really understand why Victor takes such a hammering on this thread - he is entitled to his opinion too, and it seems to me that the fact he is such a tenacious arguer rattles a few people here. If he was arguing 'for' Hanratty, his attitude would be seen as heroic.

Cheers,

Graham

[Victor]

And why do you suppose there were so many investigating journalists about? Because there was something worth investigating.

Hmmm... because of a rape, murder and attempted murder, the victim being left for dead and "miraculously" surviving.

But I do not think anything we have written merits us being described as in league with a rapist and murderer.

See post #3780.

I believe the murderer was Mr Alphon but just because someone on here disagrees with that I would not dream of saying they were in league with a rapist and murderer.

Ah, but Hanratty was guilty of those crimes, convicted and the conviction upheld by the Court of Appeal. People who state that they'd trust him over the police or victim deserve that description.

I think Walter Rowland who lived not far from me was hanged for something he did not do and it has happened before in the past. But I have never been branded anything for holding that belief by anyone.

Hanratty did it.

I have said I sympathise with Valerie Storie, who wouldn’t, but I want to analyse her evidence and how I perceive she may have been manipulated and I will continue to do that.

Now that is a very reasonable position, in stark contrast to implying she's deliberately lying...committed perjury...

By the way Reg, and don’t blind me with science, but has there been any further progress regarding the DNA?

And any news from Woffinden?

KR,
Vic.

[Victor]

I don't really understand why Victor takes such a hammering on this thread - he is entitled to his opinion too, and it seems to me that the fact he is such a tenacious arguer rattles a few people here. If he was arguing 'for' Hanratty, his attitude would be seen as heroic.

Thank you Graham, I think it's because I disagree quite vocally with the majority of those who regularly post on this thread.

[Tony]

Hi Tony,



Can you elaborate a bit on how the police 'messed up' at the beginning?



Such a statement is wholly baseless, unless you have absolute proof that Acott and Oxford viewed JH in this manner.



No, and Acott never said a great deal either. But I think it's probably policy for senior policemen not to discuss past cases, and particularly controversial ones, too openly. Acott said he thought is was a 'gas-meter jonb', i.e., an inside job.



Obviously you and everyone else are entitled to your opinion, but I've never seen any more proof that Alphon was guilty than I've seen proof that Hanratty was innocent. On what do you base your belief?

I'm not trying to be contentious or deliberately provocative, Tony, I'm seriously interested in your thoughts regarding the above, and what you can show me to try and convince me that Hanratty was innocent.

I don't really understand why Victor takes such a hammering on this thread - he is entitled to his opinion too, and it seems to me that the fact he is such a tenacious arguer rattles a few people here. If he was arguing 'for' Hanratty, his attitude would be seen as heroic.

Cheers,

Graham

Hello Graham,

You know very well that I would not see you as contentious and deliberately provocative towards me; and you know I respect and welcome your opinion as I hope you do mine.

I do not like being described as being in league with a rapist and a murderer. Would you?

As regards Vic, I’ll just quote this from his post 3799:

“Some aren't convinced he's a murderer but none can legitimately describe him as "innocent", maybe he deserved to die as a consequence of his other criminal activity.”
It seems that your question: “Such a statement is wholly baseless, unless you have absolute proof that Acott and Oxford viewed JH in this manner.”
It is possibly answered for you by Vic with that offering.

Graham I have to go out very shortly and I am busy all tomorrow as things look at the moment but don’t panic my full reply will be with you shortly.

Tony.

[jimarilyn]

and Hanratty "lost" his jacket so the incriminating bloodstains wouldn't be found.

You very conveniently forget (or weren't aware) that James Hanratty wore the striped Hepworth's suit from the day he collected it, August 18th 1961, all the way through to the night of September 30th 1961, when he tore the jacket badly on breaking into a bedroom window at Trevone.

James.

[jimornot?]

There's an icon that looks like a speech bubble, you highlight the bit you want seperate and press that. If you check that the start of the section has quote in square brackets, and the end has /quote in square brackets then that's it.

If this works Vic, brilliant and thanks

ATB

Viv

[jimornot?]

I don't really understand why Victor takes such a hammering on this thread - he is entitled to his opinion too, and it seems to me that the fact he is such a tenacious arguer rattles a few people here. If he was arguing 'for' Hanratty, his attitude would be seen as heroic

Hi Graham

Really glad I've got the hang of this quote thing now (cheers Vic)

Vic is certainly tenacious and very firm in his views. My only gripe as I've tried to express is when any poster takes if (IMO) a little bit too far, that's all

As you indicated before any polarised view will always be open to comment and for quite a time (esp in your absence) Vic has been somewhat of a lone voice in the debate. One thing for certain he does not shirk from expressing forthright views and all credit for that. But all of us will do well to heed your advice about writing twice and posting once (and consider if a message could upset people - and that for anyone in either camp or still getting splinters).

anyway I'm just perpetuating a circular argument which is not meant to be a personal attack, merely an observation. In this case it may have focused on Vic's recent postings but the responsibility is on all of us and at other times he has had an unreasonable response to a posting. But no more from me now on this as a whole.

I believe the murderer was Mr Alphon

I have doubts about Alphon myself. He may just be something of a chancer and shrewd enough to milk the opportunities infamy provided.
But for a few examples

1. his behaviour early on drew attention to himself

2. , I'm not convinced that which of the 3 stories given by Nudds etc is truly right and one definitely implicated Alphon. A's alibi was given by his mother I believe?

3. Alphon looks (to me) very much like both identikits esp one of them.

4. In his 'confession' he gives a plausible reason as to why he took on the job.

5. The payments into his account have not been explained satisfactorily enough for me

6. He may have been seen in the area beforehand (or not, I know) and so on.

None of these 6 points and others is anywhere near as firm as Valerie's I/d of Hanratty or the DNA evidence and that is why I really don't know but if H is innocent then I feel Alphon would have deserved a bit more investiation.


I have to say that for me it would better to believe the police got it right and therefore that Hanratty got his just desserts (assuming capital punishment could be justified at all). Overall though my initial thoughts arose from Paul Foot's book and I was convinced about the miscarrriage of justice. That still colours my thoughts but I can't get away from the DNA above all else. Maybe I like conspiracy theories and mysteries too much - I wonder if Nessie truly exists?

ATB

Viv

[jimarilyn]

Hi All,


I've been accused on this thread of being in league with a murderer and rapist, something I find absolutely disgraceful (because of my own personal views regarding murderers and rapists). I have also been charged by the same person of lacking sympathy for and belittling Miss Storie. I have also unjustly been accused of implying that Miss Storie deliberately lied and committed perjury in the witness box.

I will let my post (#2753) from last December speak for me........

Hi all,

A very emotive statement.

I am definitely not without sympathy for VS. I have gained the strong impression from several posters on this particular thread ( two of whom no longer post ) that because of what she went through ( and because she has been confined to a wheelchair since 1961 ) we daren't question any contradictions and inconsistencies that are quite apparent in her story. It's almost as if we should treat her with kid gloves.
Would these posters feel the same wayI wonder if she had made a full recovery and was able to walk ?

VS had first met MG towards the end of 1957 when she had just turned 19 years of age. They had been having an affair for quite some time before the events of August 22nd/23rd 1961. She was very aware that MG was married with 2 young sons but nevertheless (it would very much seem) she was quite happy to continue the affair. She had kept the true nature of this relationshiop with MG hidden from her parents. Whether they suspected the truth or not is another matter. I am not being judgmental here, ( there must be a good number of single females having affairs with married men and likewise single males having affairs with married women) just stating facts. In addition to this she told John Kerr that they had picked up a hitch-hiker, which was simply not so. I mention these two examples to illustrate the fact that she was not averse to being economical with the truth when she deemed fit to do so.

We therefore should take great care and not accept as gospel everything she has spoken ( or written ) on the matter.

I remain convinced that this was a carefully PLAnned crime.


regards,
James

regards'
James

[jimornot?]

Hi Tony,

I have no evidence for this so I'm not accusing anyone of anything but the question is valid hypothetically...

What would have happened if John Kerr's note had been inadvertently included with all the defence papers, so Sherrard had it all the time. Would it have been better for him to destroy it thereby establishing forever the doubt and confusion over the document and by association all over VS testimony?

KR,
Vic.

Hi Vic

Not sure this was answered. It's possible - who knows? But an interesting bit of hypothesising and I hope we get a lot more of it geberally so we can all indulge in thinking what if irrespective of how entrenched beliefs may be.

I can't remember it and posed the query before but in any discussion at the trial about the 'police version' of Mr Kerr's notes was there any indication from him that they had got it wrong (and if so, any indication of how badly wrong)?

ATB

Viv

[jimarilyn]

Hi All,

The following post from Sara from last December is very pertinent and topical and sums up my own feelings almost 100 %

I've huge sympathy with Storie, as we all must have - she suffered a terrtible trauma that night. But that's all the more reason to believe what she first said to Kerr, when found, and when she was no doubt still in fear of her life AND had not had time to hone a story possibly under prompting from other parties after the event.

I personally think she would have been far LESS likely to make up a story when first found, in the state she was in, there in the layby. It's not denigrating Storie in any way to remark that her testimony on several things, inc the sequence of events and the description of the victim, chaged radically. That's just stating the truth!

Whichever way you look at this case, and the way testimony changed and evidence was treated, there is something still incredible, and naggingly 'wrong' about the whole matter - especially, in my view, the disappearance of the paper on which Kerr made his notes. Looking at the Getty photo of him, he looks 'an old head on young shoulders' - I don't think we need doubt his testimony

regards,
James

[jimarilyn]

Some aren't convinced he's a murderer but none can legitimately describe him as "innocent", maybe he deserved to die as a consequence of his other criminal activity.

Shameful.