a6 murder

[Graham]

Graham
You are quite right.
Victor's theory that uncle_adolph is my sock puppet must have come as quite a shock to whoever uncle_adolph is.

Regards
Derrick

So who IS your sock-puppet?

Graham

[Natalie Severn]

Why don't you ever address the points people make Norma?

My post said contamination was considered as possible. It is not a plausible explanation either for the absence of what would have to be the real rapist's DNA nor for the distribution of Hanratty's semen sample which demonstrated to the experts who do this for a living that sexual intercourse had taken place. Don't just trot out the 'possible contamination' straw argument again.

I have actually addressed quite a number of points today if you read back.
I haven't addressed all yours on the DNA because we seem to go round and round over this.
What we are expected to accept is that this old ,tiny piece of cloth cut from Valerie"s knickers is reliable as evidence even though we do not know what happened to it after it left the police lab on December 27th 1961 . Yet we are expected to believe that from a mixture of Gregsten"s ,V.S"s and the rapists DNA ,a scientist has been able to identify and distinguish between the sexual intercourse that had taken place prior to the rape between the V.S. and Gregsten and sexual intercourse that had taken place between V.S. and her rapist.Well I don"t buy it especially after reading that the use of LCN DNA has been banned from Appeal Courts in America because of the frequency of errors in analysis : http://www.promega.com/geneticidproc...ts/budowle.pdf
Best,
Norma

[Limehouse]

Why don't you ever address the points people make Norma?

My post said contamination was considered as possible. It is not a plausible explanation either for the absence of what would have to be the real rapist's DNA nor for the distribution of Hanratty's semen sample which demonstrated to the experts who do this for a living that sexual intercourse had taken place. Don't just trot out the 'possible contamination' straw argument again.

Could you clarify what you mean by distribution of semen please?

[babybird67]

Jen,
The piece of cloth was kept in conditions that were not at all pristine.It was kept in a brown envelope where the edges had come apart found in a drawer after 31 years that contained other exhibits that had been handled by all and sundry.In the same file was a broken vial,thought to have contained a seminal wash from Hanratty"s trousers.

The hanky was kept in Bedford police station and who knows after 40 odd years where it had been?Who had handled it? Who knows for sure it wasn"t just one of Hanratty"s many white hankies?
The hanky may have simply been a trophy kept back from the trial .

Why don't you ever address the points people make Norma?

My post said contamination was considered as possible. It is not a plausible explanation either for the absence of what would have to be the real rapist's DNA nor for the distribution of Hanratty's semen sample which demonstrated to the experts who do this for a living that sexual intercourse had taken place. Don't just trot out the 'possible contamination' straw argument again.

[Natalie Severn]

Norma
Maybe it was but it isn't even implicit within the body of the text.
It should actually be removed from Wikipaedia as it doesn't pass their standard of being a reputable source.

Derrick

I think thats right.I know it definitely wouldnt be accepted in a reputable book on JtR say,as a reputable source ,without a date,a name or info on the subject that was addressed.

[Derrick]

May I politely draw everyone's attention to Post No 172 on the Steve Wright thread? No further comment necessary.

Graham

Graham
You are quite right.
Victor's theory that uncle_adolph is my sock puppet must have come as quite a shock to whoever uncle_adolph is.

Regards
Derrick

[Natalie Severn]

How do you think it was possible to separate all those DNA strands from eachother?

Or are you suggesting this fiddling came later? If it came later, are you accusing the independent scientists of colluding with or falsifying the DNA results under the influence of later Police corruption?

Jen,
The piece of cloth was kept in conditions that were not at all pristine.It was kept in a brown envelope where the edges had come apart found in a drawer after 31 years that contained other exhibits that had been handled by all and sundry.In the same file was a broken vial,thought to have contained a seminal wash from Hanratty"s trousers.

The hanky was kept in Bedford police station and who knows after 40 odd years where it had been?Who had handled it? Who knows for sure it wasn"t just one of Hanratty"s many white hankies?
The hanky may have simply been a trophy kept back from the trial .

[Derrick]

Thanks Derrick.It is quite strange that too.I mean was it actually reported in some newspaper or magazine or just taken from a TV newsreader or something?

Norma
Maybe it was but it isn't even implicit within the body of the text.
It should actually be removed from Wikipaedia as it doesn't pass their standard of being a reputable source.

Derrick

[Natalie Severn]

Hi Norma
I agree. The web page gives no information that one could base a reliable argument on.
Derrick

Thanks Derrick.It is quite strange that too.I mean was it actually reported in some newspaper or magazine or just taken from a TV newsreader or something?

[Derrick]

Nothing to do with evasion.I need to know these things before I can reach a conclusion about this remark attributed to Michael Sherrard QC.

Hi Norma
I agree. The web page gives no information that one could base a reliable argument on.
Derrick

[Natalie Severn]

I happen to agree that it would be very nice to have further details and I'm trying to find them, let's see what I can find, in the meantime what comment do you have on the information we have? I fully realise and expect you to just do Michael Howard (the Prince of Darkness) and dodge the question yet again.

Vic,
Thanks for the links which again omit the information I need.
I am unwilling to answer a question about an extract from what --exactly? It is one paragraph supposedly from an article about a meeting to the Law Society -but which journal or newspaper or branch of the media did it appear in?
I need the name of the reporter because without the name of the person who wrote it or the journal it appeared in how can I assess its likely veracity?How do I know it hasnt been misreported? I need a date to work out how the statement attributed to Sherrard tallies with later statements he has made about the case.
Nothing to do with evasion.I need to know these things before I can reach a conclusion about this remark attributed to Michael Sherrard QC.

[Graham]

May I politely draw everyone's attention to Post No 172 on the Steve Wright thread? No further comment necessary.

Graham

[Victor]

The paragraph you asked me to read in the post I addressed omitted the final line.It therefore changed the meaning,of your quote.

Norma,

In which post of mine are the final 2 sentences omitted?

I then went immedicately to the link you gave me and discovered there was no reference whatsoever to the source. Not even to the Wikipedia page which must be available just this,like this:

Have you read and understood what I've posted?

He is not alleged by wikipedia to have made the remarks, the link to the quote is on wikipedia - on the James Hanratty page, in the External Links section at the bottom, clearly labelled "The wrong man was not hanged."

So on James Hanratty's wikipedia page...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Hanratty

Scroll down to the bottom and see...

External links
Various websites have taken this cause on:

A6 Murder Casebook Forums
MURDER UK
Criminal Cases Review Commission Referral
Hanratty's defence lawyer: "The wrong man was not hanged".
CPS press release
Law Report on fresh evidence
Innocent.org.uk - Criminal Cases Review Commission

It is perfectly reasonable to want specific information on a source.It is totally unacceptable to give or accept a source without a name,a date or what the subject matter of that talk was about.

Let's see the first paragraph says..."Michael Sherrard QC [...] came to City to talk to members of the Law Society about his experiences during the famous Hanratty trial." so there's a name and a subject matter and the audience.

I happen to agree that it would be very nice to have further details and I'm trying to find them, let's see what I can find, in the meantime what comment do you have on the information we have? I fully realise and expect you to just do Michael Howard (the Prince of Darkness) and dodge the question yet again.

KR,
Vic.

[Natalie Severn]

Vic,
Lets stay calm can we.
The paragraph you asked me to read in the post I addressed omitted the final line.It therefore changed the meaning,of your quote in that particular post .I then went immediately to the link you gave me and discovered there was no reference whatsoever to the source. Not even to the Wikipedia page which must be available just this,like this:

The recent DNA tests would seem to prove conclusively that Hanratty did in fact commit the crime for which he was executed. Mr Sherrard said, "The wrong man was not hanged. That was an immense relief to me." However, his opinion of the original prosecution remains unchanged. "The evidence was too weak to justify conviction. I still hold that view."



No link to the report of the meeting Michael Sherrard QC gave the talk to .No name of the reporter.No date on the report,which I happen to think crucial,given what Sherrard wrote in his 2009 biography.
It is perfectly reasonable to want specific information on a source.It is totally unacceptable to give or accept a source without a name,a date or what the subject matter of that talk was about.

PS
I can see that you did indeed quote the sentence previously .However I was only addressing your post of a few hours ago in which you omitted it.But fair enough,you have quoted it yourself in another post and made the same comment,so it is unlikely you were omitting it intentionally,which is what I was inferring .

[Victor]

The recent DNA tests would seem to prove conclusively that Hanratty did in fact commit the crime for which he was executed. Mr Sherrard said, "The wrong man was not hanged. That was an immense relief to me." However, his opinion of the original prosecution remains unchanged. "The evidence was too weak to justify conviction. I still hold that view."

Vic, can I
1] ask you why you left out the final sentence of this paragraph which ofcourse completely changes its meaning?

In that case, please explain the following sentence..."The evidence was too weak to justify conviction. I still hold that view."

That is a direct criticism of the judgment and says that he believes they got it wrong.

Nothing more to add...

KR,
Vic.