a6 murder

[Victor]

Yes, I am well aware that chimpanzees share 99.2% of our genetic make-up and I was almost waiting for someone to point that out. However, in the case I quoted the DNA strongly indicated that the women were almost certainly sisters, sharing 98.8% of particular human, family orientated genes - and yet further tests revealed they were not, in fact even nearly directly related.

Hi Julie,
Yeah, it's Lies, Damn Lies and Statistics.

The point I am trying to make is that DNA seems to behave in ways we do not always expect.

Not really, the results need to be interpreted accurately, and the 98.8% gives it away, Jeremy Kyle has done more than 100 DNA tests, so statistically speaking you'd expect one of his results to be wrong.

The DNA taken from VS's panties was very old and a minute sample at that. There is also still a strong possibility of cross contamination from other exhibits - so - how do we know that any other DNA that possibly existed on those panties didn't disappear, evaporate or something...

Because VS (and possibly MG) DNA didn't "disappear, evaporate or something" so why should the rapists vanish either?

...and how do we know that a similar result to the case of the two women didn't occur - after all, if such cases are so rare - we are talking about two cases well over forty years apart.

Specifically that's JH DNA profile being so similar to the rapists that the tests couldn't tell them apart, and that would be more unlikely than two people having the same fingerprints, and I've not heard of that happening ever, let alone 40 years after a similar incident, but I'd have to check that.

Am I making sense??

Yes. I'm surprised noone has yet mentioned this article...

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/18/science/18dna.html?_r=2

...which basically says that it's possible to artificially make a sample of someone's DNA which could then be planted at a crime scene. Conspiracy theorists can fill their boots.

KR,
Vic.

[reg1965]

Hi all

From Hansard: HC Deb 28 October 1971 vol 823 cc2050-2
found @ http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/c...james-hanratty

in reply to Mr. Elystan Morgan, Reginald gave the following lie!

Mr. Maudling
The hon. Member is well aware that there is information in the Home Office which has not been made publicly available, to which I have had the same access as my predecessor. As for Miss Storie's identification, I have found no basis at all for the suggestion that she has materially altered her description of the murderer.
§ Following is the information:
§ James Hanratty was convicted in February, 1962, after a long trial in the course of which the jury heard extensive evidence and argument. It was for the jury to reach a verdict upon that evidence. The Court of Criminal Appeal subsequently dismissed Hanratty's appeal. It is not for the Home Secretary to set aside the verdict of the Courts. But I have considered whether there are any grounds for my intervention on the basis of material which was not before them.
2052
§ The case has already been closely reviewed on that basis by successive Home Secretaries, and over the years a great deal of information has been accumulated. After full examination of all the information available to me I cannot find that Mr. Foot, despite his very extensive research, has brought out any significant aspect of the case which has not already been thoroughly considered.
§ Mr. Foot has not had full access to all the available material, and in some respects his arguments are based on premises that are not supported by the facts. I cannot, for example, find any basis for the suggestion that Miss Storie materially altered her description of the murderer, and accordingly I cannot accept any inferences sought to be drawn from this suggestion. Nor is it the case that the police were put on the trail of Hanratty as a result of information received from Mr. William Ewer.
§ Other material which has been described as new evidence has proved upon examination to relate to matters which have already been the subject of investigation. I find, for instance, that inquiries were made of Mrs. Lanz at the time of the crime and shortly after the trial about persons she had seen at the Old Station Inn, Taplow, and her present recollection of events is not consistent with the statements she made nearer the time.
§ My predecessors gave special attention to the possibility that Hanratty might have been at Rhyl at the time of the murder, and I have for my part examined with care all the additional evidence tending to support this alibi. At a trial, alibi evidence is subject to searching cross-examination to verity its relevance and reliability; and after close scrutiny I remain unpersuaded that any of the evidence produced since the trial could stand up to such a critical examination, bearing in mind that the recollection of witnesses must necessarily become impaired by the passage of time.
§ I recognise and entirely respect the doubts which still remain in many minds, and I have considered carefully whether the appointment of a public judicial inquiry would help to resolve the issues. I have concluded for two reasons that it would not. I do not believe that any judicial tribunal can be expected to arrive at a convincing opinion as to the facts on the basis of the recollection of witnesses as to specific details ten years after the event. Mr. Justice Brabin, in his report on the Evans case, has graphically described the fallibility of any such process. Secondly there are fundamental objections to the use of such a procedure as a means to the informal trial of some other person outside the normal processes of law which would be inevitable in this case.
§ After an exhaustive review, I have therefore come to the conclusion that there is no further action which I should take in a case which, I fully recognise, has given rise to much genuine anxiety.

(my emboldening)

I say it was a lie because in April 1974 the then Home Secretary Roy Jenkins announced that VS's first statement mentioned that after the killer had said 'call me Jim' she stated that 'but I don't think that was his name'. That statement may not have mentioned eye colour but the photofits described dark eyes. Light blue eyes would not have printed dark for goodness sakes.

If this would not have had a bearing on the case before a jury or didn't infact bear out what Foot had been telling them then I'm a monkeys uncle.
The Government knew about this all along, along with the 5th statement where VS famously states that the man's face is fading which wasn't disclosed until much later.

The government has lied all along and to my mind is still doing so.

This case is not closed.

It's only natural justice at stake, don't have nightmares.
Reg

[Limehouse]

Hi Reg,

Good stuff.

I have been wondering, if Hanratty had not changed his alibi but had used Ryhl from the start, would all the parties in this trial have excepted the testimonies of the Ryhl witnesses? You see above an example of these witness testimonies being dismissed outright, but there is absolutley no witness who can place Hanratty anywhere near that field or any of the locations visited by the car on the night of the crime.

[Victor]

I have been wondering, if Hanratty had not changed his alibi but had used Ryhl from the start, would all the parties in this trial have excepted the testimonies of the Ryhl witnesses? You see above an example of these witness testimonies being dismissed outright, but there is absolutley no witness who can place Hanratty anywhere near that field or any of the locations visited by the car on the night of the crime.

Hi Julie,
I think his "sticking to his original story" excuse was valid, and it's a shame he didn't stick with it throughout the trial, as admitting he'd lied destroyed his credibility, which put the Rhyl witnesses on the back foot, which combined with the Evans\Jones collusion and Jones lying about it, completely undermined her.

As for the "no witness", there's no evidence other than Storie's testimony, that can place anyone in that cornfield.

As for the dark-eyed photofit, noone has yet explained why the pictures of Hanratty on the front of both Foot and Woffinden have dark eyes, other than in dark conditions (like the back of a car at night) Hanratty's eyes appear dark, which would make the black and white photofit an accurate representation.

KR,
Vic.

[Andrew]

As for the dark-eyed photofit, noone has yet explained why the pictures of Hanratty on the front of both Foot and Woffinden have dark eyes, other than in dark conditions (like the back of a car at night) Hanratty's eyes appear dark, which would make the black and white photofit an accurate representation.

KR,
Vic.

I think that the answer may be that, at that time, two types of black and white film stock were in use ; panchromatic and orthochromatic. Although colour interpretation of a black and white image is always going to be subjective, the orthochromatic image is darker on some colours. Some photographers preferred this and I seem to remember someone telling me that orthochromatic film was available from East Germany up until the 1980's.

Regards

Andrew

[Victor]

I think that the answer may be that, at that time, two types of black and white film stock were in use ; panchromatic and orthochromatic. Although colour interpretation of a black and white image is always going to be subjective, the orthochromatic image is darker on some colours. Some photographers preferred this and I seem to remember someone telling me that orthochromatic film was available from East Germany up until the 1980's.

Hi Andrew,

That's interesting, but I still expect Foot (in particular) to have been very careful about undermining one of his own points with the front cover of the same book! Mind you, the "bushy eyebrow" argument he makes is completely ridiculous.

I think your comment about the interpretation being subjective is particularly pertinent, especially when it's subjective for the person making the photofit, and then for that selection to be subjectively interpreted by everyone viewing it.

On the subject of Rhyl, it's quite noticeable that all of the witness timings (Larman, Vincent and Walker) are at least an hour earlier than Hanratty could possibly have made it to Rhyl, according to his evidence he'd still be on the bus when those 3 identifications occurred. Even Sherrard didn't think it was worth calling them to give evidence at the appeal.

KR,
Vic.

[Graham]

Forensic Evidence (or lack of it) From The Car

I posted about this some time ago - it's something that's always puzzled me, too.

Obviously there were finger prints from MG, VS and maybe their friends and relations (the car actually belonged to MG's aunt, who lent it to him because he was short of money), and equally obviously there must have been other traces (fibres, debris from shoes, etc) from these people. But I find it almost impossible to believe that nothing linking the car to Hanratty was apparently found. He must have been wearing gloves, but how did he prevent fibres from his clothes being deposited and found? Did he sit on a blanket, which he destroyed or discarded afterwards? I believe that in 1961 the police used the sticky-tape method to 'lift' fibre, so not a question of going over the entire interior of the car with a magnifying-glass, Sherlock Holmes fashion. And no soil deposits from shoes? I'd have said that these would have been what the police were most keen to find, to link the killer with the corn-field. Even if he hoovered the car afterwards, I can't believe that no soil-deposits were found. The modern method for locating finger-prints on hard and shiny surfaces in a car is to leave a bottle of super-glue open in the sealed vehicle; after a period of time finger-prints and other markings, on the windows, plastic trim and so forth, are visible to the naked eye. There was no super-glue in 1961, so this method wasn't available. But dusting for prints was known practice in 1961.

Very, very weird.

And, of course, nothing to link Alphon to the car, either....

Cheers,

Graham

[jimarilyn]

As the model and make of the actual weapon used has not been legally proved we might suggest that it was an automatic (as Aplhon said during the Paris interview), but it makes no odds either way.

Good to see you back posting again Reg, your input has been much missed. You make some penetrating observations in your very perceptive post.

A week or so ago I finished re-reading Paul Foot's book for the umpteenth time. Very slowly and very carefully. Speaking on the phone to Paul Foot from Dublin a couple of weeks after the Paris interview Alphon tells Foot (p369) ...."I just stuffed these bullets in and pulled the trigger. Nothing happened. And then suddenly they all came out in a rush." This (to my mind at least) suggests that the gun was an automatic. Why would Alphon say something which is completely at odds with the official evidence in the case regarding the murder weapon ?

This evidence states that the murder weapon was an Enfield.38 revolver. Professor Keith Simpson, however, in his 1978 book "Forty years of murder" would seem to support Alphon's 1967 statement to Paul Foot. In Professor Simpson's own words (speaking about Michael Gregsten's fatal head wounds)........"He had two .32 calibre bullet wounds of the head, shot 'through and through' from left ear to right cheek. The skin was tattooed round the entry wounds, and the range could not have been more than an inch or two; the shots had evidently been fired in rapid succession, before the head had moved." You will notice there is no mention of .38 calibre wounds. A .32 is an automatic whereas a .38 is a revolver.

A couple of lines later Professor Simpson (speaking about Valerie Storie's wounds) states.... "She had similar calibre through-and-through wounds, one of the neck and four drilled-in holes over her left shoulder and down over her arm. I thought probably all five shots, which were in a line, had been fired in quick succession and from beyond arm's range." This is also strongly suggestive of the murder weapon being a .32 automatic and supportive of Alphon's statement that the bullets ..."all came out in a rush"

I am more than a little perplexed and troubled by this conflicting evidence.

As to Dixies suicide it is obvious he was driven to it by Alphons persistent phone calls, for which he is now infamous.

I think these calls contributed in some way to Dixie France's suicide Reg. However I also think that the timing of his suicide was very significant, coming just 2 or 3 days after James Hanratty's Appeal was turned down. My own take on it is that France was yearning for Hanratty's Appeal to succeed, and when it didn't and the hangman's noose was just around the corner, he couldn't live with the guilt.

[jimarilyn]

A while back doing some newspaper research on the Internet I came across what I consider is a very interesting article from the Daily Express. This article is from March 18th 1963 almost a full year after James Hanratty's execution.

When I first read the article I thought it was just mildly interesting, simply because of it's passing mention of the A6 Murder which happened about 18 months earlier.

However while I was re-reading Paul Foot's book fairly recently I was struck by something I'd read on pages 304 and 349. They concern Peter Alphon. On page 304 Foot writes..."He had become interested in witchcraft and black magic." On page 349 Foot quotes Frank Justice (Jean Justice's brother) .... "And then he talked about black magic as he always used to...He was more vicious than I ever remember." Unless he was referring to a box of chocolates it would seem that Alphon was very much into the occult. It is well known that Alphon was a Hitlerite and fascist, could he also have been a satanist/devil worshipper ?

Could Alphon by any chance have been the mystery 'reporter' mentioned in that newspaper article who had been touring the Clophill area on February 11th 1963 ? If so, could Deadman's Hill, just a mile away, have been deliberately chosen beforehand as the scene of Michael Gregsten's murder. Or am I allowing my imagination to run away with me and reading something into this that's not there ?

Oops ! here come a couple of guys in white coats..........

[john]

There were 12 fingerprints taken from the car in Avondale Crescent. We do not know who they belonged to at all. You can bet that if one had been Hanratty's then the world would have known about it.

It is not credible that Hanratty left the Vienna . got a train from Paddington to Slough (or bus maybe) and then wandered around for at least 10 hours, as the latest he would have been in Slough would have been by 11am. Hanratty was always impatient and a roamer. He would not have stayed long just waiting to burgle a house in the evening as Miller theorises. He writes that Hanraaty wanted to be a big stick up man with a gun. Thus there would have been many opportunities during the day to have done that-tackled even Nellie Climmo or her neighbours-even Fogarty Waul's caravan when he started walking down the lane-large houses which were more likely to be empty during the day than the evening. Indeed was there any reports of attempted break ins at Taplow during the day. Only the Police know that,.

Yet the theory suggests he wanders around for 10 hours + with a gun in hand and then randomely comes across the couple and is bored and then tackles them. I do not believe this. This ignores the evidence of Nellie who stated that there was a 'stranger' ,an wandering down the lane earlier in the afternoon which the dog showed interest in. That suggests to me that there is someone waiting for someone in the lane.

Hanratty could never stay long anywhere long at all let alone the risk of carrying a gun for all that time wandering around lanes.. Random murders do happen but that is the key word-random. Not wait 10 hours wandering round with opportunities I think to have used the gun earlier if that was the intention of him as per Miller.

No evidence of any bus or travel witnesses to Slough for Hanratty and his distinctive eyes/hair would surely have produced one person yet a fleeting glimpses-some now shown to be very very suspect from the murder witnesses is seen as hard credible evidence.

If he did do the murder I do not see how it could have been random in view of the time lapses/his character etc. And if it was not random then who else was involved?!

Who did the DNA testing. The 'State' only or did Bindman do testing as well?
If the state only, well........................

[jimarilyn]

I think that the answer may be that, at that time, two types of black and white film stock were in use ; panchromatic and orthochromatic. Although colour interpretation of a black and white image is always going to be subjective, the orthochromatic image is darker on some colours. Some photographers preferred this and I seem to remember someone telling me that orthochromatic film was available from East Germany up until the 1980's.

Regards

Andrew

Good post Andrew. Sara wrote about this several months ago...........

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]

There were 12 fingerprints taken from the car in Avondale Crescent. We do not know who they belonged to at all. You can bet that if one had been Hanratty's then the world would have known about it.

It is not credible that Hanratty left the Vienna . got a train from Paddington to Slough (or bus maybe) and then wandered around for at least 10 hours, as the latest he would have been in Slough would have been by 11am. Hanratty was always impatient and a roamer. He would not have stayed long just waiting to burgle a house in the evening as Miller theorises. He writes that Hanraaty wanted to be a big stick up man with a gun. Thus there would have been many opportunities during the day to have done that-tackled even Nellie Climmo or her neighbours-even Fogarty Waul's caravan when he started walking down the lane-large houses which were more likely to be empty during the day than the evening. Indeed was there any reports of attempted break ins at Taplow during the day. Only the Police know that,.

Yet the theory suggests he wanders around for 10 hours + with a gun in hand and then randomely comes across the couple and is bored and then tackles them. I do not believe this. This ignores the evidence of Nellie who stated that there was a 'stranger' ,an wandering down the lane earlier in the afternoon which the dog showed interest in. That suggests to me that there is someone waiting for someone in the lane.

Hanratty could never stay long anywhere long at all let alone the risk of carrying a gun for all that time wandering around lanes.. Random murders do happen but that is the key word-random. Not wait 10 hours wandering round with opportunities I think to have used the gun earlier if that was the intention of him as per Miller.

No evidence of any bus or travel witnesses to Slough for Hanratty and his distinctive eyes/hair would surely have produced one person yet a fleeting glimpses-some now shown to be very very suspect from the murder witnesses is seen as hard credible evidence.

If he did do the murder I do not see how it could have been random in view of the time lapses/his character etc. And if it was not random then who else was involved?!

Who did the DNA testing. The 'State' only or did Bindman do testing as well?
If the state only, well........................

Excellent observations John. No sightings at all of Hanratty or Hanratty look-alikes in the Dorney area but at least three witnesses who claim they saw either Alphon or an Alphon look-alike in the area that fateful Tuesday.

[larue]

hi all

welcome back reg and tony. nice to read you, to read you.... crackerjack!!!!

hi Vic

Not really, the results need to be interpreted accurately, and the 98.8% gives it away,

true enough. so what happens if the examining technician makes a whoopsy and mis-interprets the results??

Because VS (and possibly MG) DNA didn't "disappear, evaporate or something" so why should the rapists vanish either?

this disapearing dna interests me. if i understand it right, it has been suggested that if jh's dna was found on the knickers because of cross contamination, it had somehow overwritten or obliterated the real rapist's dna, that's why only three dna's were found: vs, mg and jh. am i right? i think the point about the three dna's being found has been made by several people, along with the comment 'and no other' written in capital letters, thus implying that it must have been jh, because no evidence of anyone else was found.

call me stupid, but is it not possible that no other dna was found because:

1. the REAL rapist's dna was not on the knicker fragment, but elsewhere on the garment, which was not available for dna testing
2. the rapist wore a condom [ unlikely i know, but is it totally impossible?]
3. the rapist did not climax, and so left no dna?
4. the rape did not occur. [ at least, not in the form we assume?]
5. the rapist was sterile and left no semen?

i'm not suggesting any of the above items are true, but they would certainly explain why no other dna was found.

[larue]

Hi,
La rue - to say that ' no-one in officialdom even cared if Hanratty was the right man' is surely taking cynicism a step too far. Quite apart from the morality of that, if he was the wrong man they might soon have another similar crime on their hands.

Regards,
Simon

hi Simon

cynical i certainly am. i must have been reading too many books about famous british crimes. take craig and bentley for instance. the world and it's cat knew derek bentley had killed no-one, but officialdom had to have it's pound of flesh. after all, a copper had been killed, so someone had to die for it. and i think everyone, including the home secretary knew darn well that derek bentley was'nt the killer. but he hung anyway, leaving the real cop killer to serve a few years, then become a plumber.

as for your other point, it's interesting to speculate wat james h would have gone on to do, had he been aquitted. mind you, there has been more than one killer who has been freed only to kill again...

[simon]

Hi Larue,
Bentley, though, was involved in the incident : therefore there's some logic to the desire to see him hanged, even if we don't agree with it. There's a big difference between that and what you seem to be suggesting : " This chap Hanratty possibly had nothing to do with it - but, what the hell, let's hang SOMEBODY and then get on with our lives."

Cheers,
Simon