a6 murder

[Limehouse]

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

Hi Graham,

This aspect of the case is indeed weird. Don't you think it is weird also that, although Hanratty evidently desposited semen onto VS's panties, he left none anywhere else at the scene? Not a drop or a smear on the seats or on the floor? Did he rape VS with gloves on? If so, wouldn't there be some type of fluid substances (We are all (hopefully) adults and know what I mean) evident on the gloves that would have been deposited somewhere in the car following the rape?? How is it that there is not a skin cell, not a hair, not a trace of the killer?

This is a big issue for me. Bigger still is that fact that, apart from the DNA on that fragment of VS's panties, the only tangible evidence that links Hanratty to the actual scene was found external to the scene. Realistically, the gun, hanky and cartridges COULD have been planted. There is not even an independent witness who can place Hanratty anywhere near the scene of the abduction or the murder that night.

This thread has really revived in recent days and it is wonderful to see so many people posting, especially old friends.

[Limehouse]

hi all

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

hi Vic


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



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.

Excellent stuff LaRue!

[Limehouse]

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.



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.

Hi Jim,

According to the evidence, the killer told VS and MG that 'he had not had the gun long. It's a .38'.

Re the gun, what do you make of the fact that when found under the back seat of the bus, the gun was fully loaded?

[reg1965]

Hi all
With regards to the deposit of jism and the blood group elicited in 1961, I would suggest we give the Crown the benefit of the doubt and say that that is right.
As to whose DNA appeared on Ms Stories knicker fragement, as it existed in 1997, is up for serious and reasoned debate.
As has been put forward, it is quite feasible that the killers DNA was not on the fragment, but had been disposed of previously.
Even if it wasn't it still does not explain, as far as the appeal judgement goes, how Storie's and Gegsten's DNA was disentangled from James Hanratty's? As LCN was used and from a mixed profile it would be impossible to detect who's DNA was whose. And as that would have been so, on what basis was Peter Alphon eliminated?
Reg.

[reg1965]

Hi All
paragraph extracts from the appeal (2002) relating to the DNA evidence.

115. All the exhibits, including those mentioned, were produced at the committal proceedings which took place between 22 November 1961 and 5 December 1961. If the usual procedures of the time were followed it would seem doubtful that any one of the exhibits, barring possibly the gun and certain of the cartridges, would ever have been removed from its packaging or container. Even so, as Mr Mansfield points out and the respondent concedes, the possibility that there was contact between the various exhibits cannot be excluded altogether.

116. As a result of correspondence between James Hanratty’s then solicitors and the DPP, arrangements were made for the pathologist, Dr Grant, to have access to James Hanratty’s intimate samples and also to certain of the exhibits. It appears from the records that Dr Grant examined the green jacket and trousers on 28 December 1961 and Valerie Storie’s slips and knickers the following day. It was on this latter occasion that a portion of the crotch area of the knickers was removed and thereafter, as seems clear, stored separately from the other exhibits including the knickers from which it had been excised. As also seems clear, a fragment of the excised portion was retained by the laboratory having first been placed in a small envelope made of cellophane and sellotape which was in turn put into a small brown envelope and the small envelope into a larger envelope before being treasury tagged to a laboratory file. It was so placed when rediscovered in 1991.

123. The handkerchief was placed in an open buff OHMS envelope from which, no doubt, it was produced both at the committal proceedings and at trial. It was not examined by Dr Grant. In those circumstances the opportunities for contamination would seem to be extremely limited. However, in common with the approach taken in the case of the knicker fragment, the respondent’s experts are prepared to accept that there has been, at least, a theoretical risk of contamination.

(my emboldening)

The appeal court judges above cannot rule out the possibilty of contamination. Even more so thay state the areas were contamination could have occurred.

As Dr Bruce Budowle, the eminent senior forensic scientist of the FBI, at Quantico, states (http://www.promega.com/geneticidproc...ts/budowle.pdf);

LCN typing should not be applied to post-conviction analyses and examination of old cases
without substantial consideration. It can not be used for exculpatory purposes, and LCN
contamination from handling may have occurred

Here is the most worrying of the appeal court judges statements. We all know that DNA evidence is only a probabalistic account and that certain guilt cannot be ascertained by it. So why was p127 made and why were all of the appellants grounds dismissed because of it?

127. Accordingly, we reject the evidence of Dr Evison where it is in conflict with the additional evidence of the respondents, agreeing as we do with the submission made by Mr Sweeney that the DNA evidence standing alone is certain proof of James Hanratty’s guilt.

You tell me.

At least the DNA evidence here needs to be looked at again by truely independent scientists.

Reg

[Victor]

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

Hi Larue,
That's possible with any test, but the multiple redundancy mitigates against it.

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.

That's all true.

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.

All 5 of your points were considered and discounted because the fragment of knickers was cut from where they detected blood type O secretor semen, hence must be the rapists' (MG semen was found too). Therefore it is utterly unfeasible for the fragment to not have the rapists' semen, especially as VS DNA was detected, possibly by using a technique where they seperate male DNA from female as mentioned in the DNA thread which leads to the conclusion that everyone including Dr Evison accepting that any contamination "must be semen".

KR,
Vic.

[Graham]

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.

But ballistics proved, using cartridge cases found at the scene and at least one bullet taken from VS, that the .38 Enfield found on the bus was the weapon used to shoot VS and, presumably, MG - although I'm not aware that the bullets which killed MG were ever found.

Out of interest, every gun leaves its own individual trace of its rifling on the bullet, and its own individual trace of its firing-pin on the cartridge.

Cheers,

Graham

[Victor]

Out of interest, every gun leaves its own individual trace of its rifling on the bullet, and its own individual trace of its firing-pin on the cartridge.

Hi Graham,

That's how the cartridge cases in the Vienna were linked to the weapon found on the bus, which in turn was linked to the cartridge cases recovered from the scene.

In fact the only discrepancy is that according to Prof Simpson, the wounds caused to MG and VS, don't match the cartridge cases at the scene and those found at the Vienna, and the gun on the bus.

People are quite at liberty to throw logic to the winds and assume weird theories about the murder weapon not being found, but can't get passed the gun on the bus leaving cartridge cases at the scene. How about two weapons being involved, and the cartridge cases being planted...

KR,
Vic.

[Graham]

Hi Vic,

In fact the only discrepancy is that according to Prof Simpson, the wounds caused to MG and VS, don't match the cartridge cases at the scene and those found at the Vienna, and the gun on the bus.

I'd say that the good Professor either made a genuine mistake of memory when writing his memoirs or, maybe more likely, it was poor proof-reading.*

*I recently read a technical paper (translated from Russian, as it happens) and a few of the quoted figures made no sense at all. We contacted the publisher who checked the original and gave his proof-reader a kick up the chuff. Paper duly corrected and now adding up.

Cheers,

Graham

[Victor]

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 ?

Hi James,

It's a bit unfair taking that quote in isolation and not mentioning all the other things that Alphon said that were "completely at odds with the official evidence in the case". I'm confident that you're aware of what these things are so won't list them.

It seems to me that you are picking and chosing which bits of Alphon's statements\confessions to believe and which to dismiss.

KR,
Vic.

[jimarilyn]

It's a bit unfair taking that quote in isolation and not mentioning all the other things that Alphon said that were "completely at odds with the official evidence in the case". I'm confident that you're aware of what these things are so won't list them.

It seems to me that you are picking and chosing which bits of Alphon's statements\confessions to believe and which to dismiss.

On the contrary Victor, this quote was not taken in isolation. It was in response to a point Reg made (post 4103) regarding the make and model of the murder weapon.

So much of what Peter Alphon had to say in his A6 murder confessions has the ring of truth and believability about it. At the same time he was ultra careful to include demonstrably proven untruths and half-truths to safeguard himself from any possible future prosecution

[jimarilyn]

Hi Jim,

According to the evidence, the killer told VS and MG that 'he had not had the gun long. It's a .38'.

Re the gun, what do you make of the fact that when found under the back seat of the bus, the gun was fully loaded?

Hi Julie,

I have no tangible reason to doubt that the murder weapon was in fact the Enfield .38 revolver found by Edwin Cooke. In all likelihood it would boil down to a very careless typo error in Professor Simpson's book, something you just would not expect from a man of his prominent standing.
The Enfield.38 revolver is a rather bulky and cumbersome weapon (over 10" in length and quite heavy I'm led to believe) and it's difficult to imagine such a weapon causing the neat pattern of bullet holes in Valerie Storie's neck and left shoulder, bearing in mind that it must have a considerable kick-back when fired.

Re. the gun being fully loaded when found on that 36A bus whoever placed it there (Dixie France is my choice) obviously knew it was fully loaded when he/she carefully placed it there under a soiled handkerchief of Hanratty's. I can think of only two reasons why the gun was placed there...

1) To be retrieved at some pre-arranged time by it's rightful owner.

2) Planted there deliberately to implicate James Hanratty as the A6 killer.


Why it was fully loaded is anyone's guess.......

[Limehouse]

Hi Julie,

I have no tangible reason to doubt that the murder weapon was in fact the Enfield .38 revolver found by Edwin Cooke. In all likelihood it would boil down to a very careless typo error in Professor Simpson's book, something you just would not expect from a man of his prominent standing.
The Enfield.38 revolver is a rather bulky and cumbersome weapon (over 10" in length and quite heavy I'm led to believe) and it's difficult to imagine such a weapon causing the neat pattern of bullet holes in Valerie Storie's neck and left shoulder, bearing in mind that it must have a considerable kick-back when fired.

Re. the gun being fully loaded when found on that 36A bus whoever placed it there (Dixie France is my choice) obviously knew it was fully loaded when he/she carefully placed it there under a soiled handkerchief of Hanratty's. I can think of only two reasons why the gun was placed there...

1) To be retrieved at some pre-arranged time by it's rightful owner.

2) Planted there deliberately to implicate James Hanratty as the A6 killer.


Why it was fully loaded is anyone's guess.......

Hi Jim,

Indeed, this point about the size of the gun is very relevant. Precisely how did Hanratty carry around this weapon, without drawing attention to himself, immediately prior to the attack? Did he have five boxes of ammunition with him at the time of the attack and immediately afterwards? If so, where did he keep them? VS stated that she could hear the bullets 'rattling around' in his pockets but could that realistically include five boxes worth? Wouldn't all this be bulky to carry around on the journey to the cornfield and rather draw attention to him (as he was, according the VS's statement, immaculately dressed)?

Re the loaded gun, I think this is a very important point. It was loaded when found. Did the killer re-load immediately after the crimes? Did he re-load a while afterwards? The re-loading of the gun, if done by the killer, indicates that this person was prepared, not just to point a huge gun at someone to frighten them, but to actually use it - again. This to me suggests a very different frame of mind than that of someone who has gone out with a gun for the first time to 'try things out' and has let things slip into chaos by accident. If the killer did not load the gun after the crime, someone else did. Why?

[Graham]

Hi Graham,

This aspect of the case is indeed weird. Don't you think it is weird also that, although Hanratty evidently desposited semen onto VS's panties, he left none anywhere else at the scene? Not a drop or a smear on the seats or on the floor? Did he rape VS with gloves on? If so, wouldn't there be some type of fluid substances (We are all (hopefully) adults and know what I mean) evident on the gloves that would have been deposited somewhere in the car following the rape?? How is it that there is not a skin cell, not a hair, not a trace of the killer?

This is a big issue for me. Bigger still is that fact that, apart from the DNA on that fragment of VS's panties, the only tangible evidence that links Hanratty to the actual scene was found external to the scene. Realistically, the gun, hanky and cartridges COULD have been planted. There is not even an independent witness who can place Hanratty anywhere near the scene of the abduction or the murder that night.

This thread has really revived in recent days and it is wonderful to see so many people posting, especially old friends.

Hi Julie,

There's nothing to definitely place Alphon near the cornfield or in the car, either.

I just don't know enough about police forensic methods, either in 1961 or now, to comment on how they checked out the Morris for clues. Yes, they did find 12 finger-prints, but presumably these checked with VS's, MG's or any other people possibly identified by VS who had been in the car recently, friends or work-colleagues perhaps.

It just seems to me that, for an individual to spend, what, 6+ hours on the small back-seat of a car and not leave any tangible or even microscopic trace of his presence, is extremely odd. It could possibly suggest that the forensic people weren't particularly thorough, and if not, why not? Or JH used gloves and blankets, etc., to place between himself and the car's upholstery and got rid of them afterwards?

Cheers,

Graham

[jimarilyn]

Re the loaded gun, I think this is a very important point. It was loaded when found. Did the killer re-load immediately after the crimes? Did he re-load a while afterwards? The re-loading of the gun, if done by the killer, indicates that this person was prepared, not just to point a huge gun at someone to frighten them, but to actually use it - again. This to me suggests a very different frame of mind than that of someone who has gone out with a gun for the first time to 'try things out' and has let things slip into chaos by accident. If the killer did not load the gun after the crime, someone else did. Why?

Hi Julie,

Yes, I too wondered whether it was the killer who re-loaded immediately before he drove away from Deadman's Hill or if it was done subsequently by him or an accomplice. Could it have been re-loaded on the bus itself when the upstairs deck was quiet ? It was a potentially very dangerous thing to do. Anyone (teenage delinquent for example) could easily have looked under that back seat and claimed the gun for themselves and there could have been serious repercussions, especially in the wrong hands