a6 murder

[jimarilyn]

Hi Tony,

Just finished reading (and laughing at) your very funny post.

I've stepped inside that ground on three occasions Tony. The first time was in October 1965 ( I remember hearing Joan Baez's famous song "We shall overcome" being played on the tannoy system ) when I was just 13 years old. Me and my mate Billy Grier thumbed a lift there along the East Lancs Road. I remember we lost that match 2-0 and it wasn't much fun trying to thumb a lift back home.
The second time was in 1972 when we hammered them 3-0. Urinal supporters had a terrible reputation at that time for beating up opposing supporters so me and my 2 mates exited stage right about 15 minutes before the end of the game, for safety reasons. We were practicing our Manchester accents coming out the ground just in case a couple of frustrated loonies asked us anything. That's the only time I've left a match with 15 minutes remaining !
A funny thing happened as we were heading away from the ground and towards relative safety. We were quite peckish and decided to stop and buy a hot-dog from the hot-dog stand further along the road. One of my mates, Terry, decided to put some ketchup on his hot-dog only for him to squeeze the plastic container too hard and the loose top came off. Red sauce squirted out all over his face and onto his clean shirt. We were in hysterics at the sight of him. Couldn't laugh too loud though just in case a Mancunian detected a scouse accent.

The last time I was in the unmentionable ground was a couple of years later in 1974 in an FA Cup semi-final against Leicester City which ended in a goalless draw. Don't remember much about that occasion strangely enough.
I do remember going to the replay at Villa Park which we won 3-1 and then went to Wembley where we beat Newcastle 3-0. A very happy occasion and the only time I've been to Wembley.

Nostalgia certainly ain't what it used to be...............

[Tony]

Hi Tony,

Just finished reading (and laughing at) your very funny post.

I've stepped inside that ground on three occasions Tony. The first time was in October 1965 ( I remember hearing Joan Baez's famous song "We shall overcome" being played on the tannoy system ) when I was just 13 years old. Me and my mate Billy Grier thumbed a lift there along the East Lancs Road. I remember we lost that match 2-0 and it wasn't much fun trying to thumb a lift back home.
The second time was in 1972 when we hammered them 3-0. Urinal supporters had a terrible reputation at that time for beating up opposing supporters so me and my 2 mates exited stage right about 15 minutes before the end of the game, for safety reasons. We were practicing our Manchester accents coming out the ground just in case a couple of frustrated loonies asked us anything. That's the only time I've left a match with 15 minutes remaining !
A funny thing happened as we were heading away from the ground and towards relative safety. We were quite peckish and decided to stop and buy a hot-dog from the hot-dog stand further along the road. One of my mates, Terry, decided to put some ketchup on his hot-dog only for him to squeeze the plastic container too hard and the loose top came off. Red sauce squirted out all over his face and onto his clean shirt. We were in hysterics at the sight of him. Couldn't laugh too loud though just in case a Mancunian detected a scouse accent.

The last time I was in the unmentionable ground was a couple of years later in 1974 in an FA Cup semi-final against Leicester City which ended in a goalless draw. Don't remember much about that occasion strangely enough.
I do remember going to the replay at Villa Park which we won 3-1 and then went to Wembley where we beat Newcastle 3-0. A very happy occasion and the only time I've been to Wembley.

Nostalgia certainly ain't what it used to be...............

Hi Julie,

You need have no ulterior motive for offering to give someone on here, or anywhere else for that matter a gift of a book.
I personally have done it on many occasions. In fact I think I may have even offered to give you some books if you wanted them.
I have certainly paid for the books we discuss on here and sent them off at my own expense to anyone who has asked. I have done this many times on here and including to people with the opposite point of view to my own.
I have certainly bought both the Foot and Woffinden books and sent them to the ‘Hanratty definitely did it JohnL’. Remember him? No nor do I.

I did it for no other reason than I am in a position to do so. I would do it for anyone on here from the other side who asked me. It is called being a reasonable and kind person. I take the view that life is not for ever and if you can do something for someone or help them then why ever not.

Tony.

[Victor]

Tony,

Have you been drinking or something?

You quoted James' post (that is completely off-topic), in it's entirety (which is against the forum rules), started your reply "Hi Julie" and then discussed your generosity which has no relevance to the post you quoted.

If you want to discuss football then kindly send a PM, to save the rest of us having to skip past it. Twice.

KR,
Vic.

[Graham]

Hi Jim,

I read your long post with considerable interest. However, anyone who's read Foot's and Woffinden's books, together with the various 'official' publications reference debates in Parliament, will be very familiar with the points you make.

Long before the DNA, I was very interested in the measures taken to 'prove' JH's innocence, but the problem is that none of the points you raise were, are, or can be, 'proven' in isolation. Together, they make something of a case on which the argument for JH's innocence could be based, but the problem I had, and have, is that they were evidently not proved at the time and certainly cannot be proved now.

There is no doubt that before, during and after JH's trial a number of persons, for whatever reason(s), were concerned that a possible miscarriage of justice was taking place, and I accept that. Nobody would ever wish to see an innocent man hang, nor even a defendant the prosecution-case against whom was flimsy. I say again, that had JH (a) not changed his alibi half-way through his trial and (b) not insisted upon taking the stand himself, the chances are he'd have been found 'not guilty' because of lack of evidence; in Scotland they had a verdict of 'not proven', and I think that in JH's case that would have been a fair verdict had it not been for JH himself. 'Not proven' doesn't mean 'innocent' - it means, basically, 'we are pretty sure you did it, but we can't pin it on you'.

As far as Alphon is concerned, everything surrounding him is either circumstantial or heresay. He confessed, then he retracted (on more than one occasion). His presence in the case simply adds to the mystery of it, in my humble opinion. He was included purely out of coincidence, courtesy of the manager of the Alexandra Court Hotel. Had the manager not bothered to report Alphon to the police, I am positive that we'd never have heard of Alphon.

The one thing that convinces me that Alphon wasn't the A6 killer was his actions once he was exonnerated. If I'd been in his shoes and guilty of such a terrible crime I'd have put as much distance between myself and London as I possibly could, and faded away for ever, in the knowledge that I'd got away with murder, rape and attempted murder - instead, Alphon hung around, lurking in the shadows, so to speak. He knew he couldn't be touched, was fully aware that he was in an excellent position to milk one or two wealthy people for all they were worth, and made the most of it. There's a reflection of this re: Jack The Ripper, when Mary Kelly's boy-friend Joe Barnett, a suspect at the time and a suspect today, continued to live for the next 30 years or so very close to where the Ripper Crimes were committed; he was not the Ripper, the police cleared him, and he felt able to carry on life where he'd always lived it.

As far as the jury at JH's trial was concerned, his guilt was established by identification (by Valerie Storie); by the gun on the bus and what he had told Charles France about a good hiding-place on a bus; by changing his alibi thus destroying any credibility he had; by taking the witness-stand and making a poor fist of it. Far and away the most damning of all evidence against him was Valerie Storie's, and she had never to this day shifted from it one iota.

For the people who believe Hanratty to be guilty that should in effect be that. End of story.

Tony stated this in a recent post, and on the face of it, you can't argue with what he says. However, even though I am totally convinced of JH's guilt, I still sniff a lot more behind the scenes, so to speak. There are grey areas in this case, but the more I think about it, the more I feel that we've probably learned as much as we'll ever know. It seems that anyone still alive who was involved in the case are keeping their silence, obviously for their own reasons.
Funny, but I get the feeling that we know more about the mysterious death of Amy Robsart 450-odd years ago than we do about the A6 Case from only 48 years back....


Such, as Ned Kelly is supposed to have said when asked if he had any last words, is life.

Graham

[Tony]

Graham,

You are on the opposite side of the fence to me; you have completely the opposite view to my own.

It is a pleasure debating the subject with you, Sir.

Tony.

[Dupplin Muir]

Hello all

On another thread Graham mentioned that I hadn't posted here for some time, and the reason for this is that the discussion doesn't seem to go anywhere. We talk about the Rhyl alibi; about the dumping of the gun; about the unlikelihood of Hanratty wandering about the countryside and just happening upon VS and MG; about the possible guilt of Alphon, etc, etc, but eventually it all comes back to the DNA evidence. The 'jimdiditites' think that it puts Hanratty's guilt beyond reasonable doubt even though, in reality, the testimony from FSS is nothing but hearsay, since we only know what they claimed to have found, but not what they actually did find, since the destruction of the sample means that there is now no way of checking the results.

To use an analogy, imagine if something similar had happened with (say) ballistic evidence:

Prosecution expert: 'Yes, the bullet definitely came from the suspect's gun'
Defence barrister: 'I see. Can we have the bullet so our expert can check your findings?'
Prosecution expert: 'Err...sorry, we destroyed it during testing. You'll just have to take our word for it'

Once the gales of laughter in court had subsided, the case would be immediately dismissed.

The problem with the DNA evidence is that FSS are prosecution experts, who depend on this for their livelihood and are extremely unwilling to work on behalf of the defence. They are not impartial witnesses, turning up to give the court the benefit of their scientific knowledge. The DNA evidence in the Hanratty case is not in any sense 'scientific' because one of the fundamental principles of science is that all experiments must be repeatable, so a one-off test such as this cannot be considered as anything more than hearsay.

A further problem with the testimony from FSS is the question of why the sample was destroyed. The only plausible reason that occurs to me is that there was so little DNA that it took the entire specimen to get enough to test. However, there is a major difficulty with this: if there was so little DNA, then it makes it much more probable that it is the result of contamination since (by the law of averages) you are more likely to get a small amount of contamination than a large amount. Yet Dr Whitaker and his merry men didn't mention this. In effect, in this scenario, we are only talking about a few cells, and these could have been transferred in any number of ways. For FSS to ignore this is a clear indication of a pro-prosecution bias. This bias also means we cannot accept their assurance that the DNA came from sperm rather than (say) skin-cells.

On the other hand, if there were large amounts of Hanratty's DNA on the sample, why didn't FSS just cut off a sliver and save the rest? I doubt if even Dr Whitaker would be arrogant enough to believe that the methods used at FSS are the ultimate in DNA testing, and we will doubtless see much more sophisticated techniques in the future. As a further observation, I have noticed that samples in other cases have also been destroyed by FSS's tender ministrations, so I have come to believe that such destruction is a deliberate policy, disguised as part of the testing procedure, and intended to prevent anyone checking the results.

Questions have also arisen about Whitaker's testimony in other cases. In reporting Bradley Murdoch's appeal against his (unjust) conviction for killing Peter Falconio, even that well-known hotbed of bleeding-heart liberals, the Daily Mail, was happy to characterise Whitaker's testimony as 'junk science' (I know they're quoting someone else, but they don't attempt to refute it).

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-563626/Joanne-Lees-spotlight-dramatic-new-evidence-free-man-convicted-killing-boyfriend.html

Even when FSS was part of the Home Office it was hardly a paradigm of honesty and reliability, but since it has been privatised the situation has become much worse. At least in the past the public could ask (however vainly) for some kind of impartial oversight, but nowadays such suggestions are met with anguished squeals of 'commercial confidentiality' which prevent any examination of FSS's results and methods. You might also consider why the government has always fought tooth-and-nail against the idea of having a truly independent forensic service, because if the scientists were actually impartial it wouldn't matter who controlled the laboratory.

To summarise, those who take the DNA evidence seriously are putting their trust in a system which has a long and inglorious history of forensic scientists going into the witness-box and lying through their teeth to ensure a conviction, from Spilsbury through to Skuse, Cameron and Meadow, with a 'Mention in Despatches' for Paul Britton after his sterling efforts to help the police fit-up Colin Stagg. Believing in the probity of FSS is akin to believing in the tooth-fairy or Santa Claus: it's a matter of faith and not amenable to rational argument.

DM

[Graham]

Hi Tony,

Thanks for your kind comment. We may disagree, but we can still be friends.

Hi D.Muir,

Hmmm...not sure what to make of your post. To suggest that the FSS cannot be trusted is hard for me to get my head around. If they can't be trusted, then there is an immense problem in the manner in which criminal cases are prosecuted. It questions every case ever brought to court in which a successful prosection was obtained by forensic, especially DNA, evidence. Perhaps you could suggest an alternative...?

Certainly, there have been cases in which the forensic evidence has been highly suspect - you cite Dr Frank Skuse of Birmingham Six fame, and with good reason. But can you give any valid proof of your contention that he was lying, and not merely mistaken? Agreed, if I were one of the Birmingham Six banged up for life on the strength of Skuse's evidence, it wouldn't matter a bugger to me if he were lying or mistaken. But until it can be proved that he was lying through his teeth, I'll continue to think that he made mistakes - mistakes with tragic consequences, I'll not deny, but mistakes all the same.

Forensic science was conceived first and foremost as a tool of the prosection in a criminal case - even Sherlock Holmes mentions the microscope and finger-printing as being used only to convict, rather than to clear. Equally obviously, there must be many wrongly-accused persons more than happy to acknowledge that they owe their freedom to forensic science.

You mention Paul Britton and his profiling - but surely that can't be viewed as a forensic science, can it? To my mind it's in the same league as handwriting analysis - highly subjective and of dubious proven value - ask Colin Stagg or his lawyers.

As far as the DNA and Hanratty are concerned, I do accept the findings of the FSS. Their first tests were inconclusive, which is why JH was exhumed to extract what I can only describe as 'more authentic' DNA. It is also worth noting that the Hanratty family and supporters were all for DNA testing, until the initial test produced ambiguous results and the order was given to exhume his body. Suddenly they back-tracked - they didn't want DNA tests after all. Why should that be, I ask? Well, the answer is fairly obvious to me - they were concerned as to what the results would be.

Do we automatically question every case that the police are involved in? Oddly enough, in an era in which crime is so commonplace that only serious stuff is reported, there is still sometimes discerned the old "it's a fair cop, guv" attitude of those who transgress.

Finally, I have a friend who worked for years as a forensic scientist, and I've discussed the A6 Case with him - he knows quite a lot about it, as it happens. He tells me that 99 times out a 100, samples presented to his lab for analysis were identified just by a reference number. There was very rarely any other identification. He is 99.9% certain that the technicians who actually carried out the A6 analyses would not have known the origin or provenance of the samples they were testing. Given this, why should they have purposely been unreliable and/or dishonest? They were doing what they was paid to do, no more and no less.

Cheers,

Graham

[Victor]

As a further observation, I have noticed that samples in other cases have also been destroyed by FSS's tender ministrations, so I have come to believe that such destruction is a deliberate policy, disguised as part of the testing procedure, and intended to prevent anyone checking the results.

Hi DM,

The entire issue here is that DNA analysis is a destructive test. The sample is destroyed during the test. That point is widely known and was known before the testing commenced.

At least in the past the public could ask (however vainly) for some kind of impartial oversight, but nowadays such suggestions are met with anguished squeals of 'commercial confidentiality' which prevent any examination of FSS's results and methods.

FSS hold the patent on LCN testing, they don't want others to know how to do it, so they can keep making money by testing in the future, they developed the test, so why shouldn't they keep their exact method secret?

Other points are:-
Dr Evison, the defence expert, accepted "in the case of the knicker fragment the contaminant would have to be semen" so I see no need to dispute that.
3 DNA profiles were found, VS MG and JH, how to get these results and not find a profile from "the rapists" is impossible to describe plausibly. I include any conspiracy theory in the implausible category.
Each sample is analysed multiple times, therefore is repeatable.
Expert witness testimony isn't hearsay.
We know there weren't "large amounts of Hanratty's DNA on the sample" because the standard SGM+ test didn't get a meaningful profile.
DNA testing only says whose DNA was on a sample, the job then is to explain how the DNA got there which is an entirely seperate issue.

KR,
Vic.

[Graham]

DNA testing only says whose DNA was on a sample, the job then is to explain how the DNA got there which is an entirely seperate issue.

Exactly - same as fingerprinting. Forensics can only say that a particular fingerprint is, or is not, that of a particular person - the question of how a fingerprint came to be found upon a particular article which is an aspect of an investigation is then the job of the police to prove. The prosecution of a criminal case remains with the police, and the FSS is a tool they are able to utilise as they see fit. The FSS do not accuse or exonnerate - they merely report.

Cheers,

Graham

[Tony]

An excellent contribution from DM and very thought provoking. Yes I have been drinking.
Thank you Graham for your very kind comments about me. I really like your contributions on here.

Graham, do you know much about Douglas Nimmo who investigated James Hanratty’s, Rhyl alibi?

There, James, I’ve made a contribution without mentioning football. Damn it; I’ve gone and done it after all.
Sorry if that’s upset a person.

Tony.
(Justice for the 96).

[larue]

hi all

nice to see the debate flaring up again, though not so nice to see some of the old nastiness creeping back in...

All I ask of those who genuinely believe that Hanratty was innocent, is to produce one piece of tangible, proveable, hard, evidence of his innocence; and then I think the debate will really take off.

oh, come on Graham, be fair

now where is anybody going to get such proof? this question is rather like aksing a religious person to prove the existance of their god... we all know it cannot be done.

if, as you believe, jh was guilty, then such evidence cannot exist. how can you then expect anyone to bring it forth. and anyway, if someone produced evidence, documentary or otherwise, that jh was totally innocent of this crime, would anyone believe it???

[jimarilyn]

An excellent contribution from DM and very thought provoking. Yes I have been drinking.
Thank you Graham for your very kind comments about me. I really like your contributions on here.

Graham, do you know much about Douglas Nimmo who investigated James Hanratty’s, Rhyl alibi?

There, James, I’ve made a contribution without mentioning football. Damn it; I’ve gone and done it after all.
Sorry if that’s upset a person.

Tony.
(Justice for the 96).

I quite agree with you Tony, DM's post was very impressive indeed and thought provoking ( I can hear already hear the accusations of sycophancy !).

You better watch out Tony or you'll be having to report to an interfering headmaster's office (so will I !).

I see the Owls are doing well lately, hope they keep it up and return to the Premiership very soon where they belong.

It was a case of daylight robbery on Saturday evening Reg. The Gunners look a very good prospect this season ( as do the very impressive Spurs ). Oops bettter stop now before I get reported...............

Excellent post by the way Larue, you took the words right out of my mouth.

[larue]

To summarise, those who take the DNA evidence seriously are putting their trust in a system which has a long and inglorious history of forensic scientists going into the witness-box and lying through their teeth to ensure a conviction, from Spilsbury through to Skuse, Cameron and Meadow, with a 'Mention in Despatches' for Paul Britton after his sterling efforts to help the police fit-up Colin Stagg. Believing in the probity of FSS is akin to believing in the tooth-fairy or Santa Claus: it's a matter of faith and not amenable to rational argument.

hi DM

a very interesting post, especially the last paragraph, with which, i totally agree. also of interest is your mention of spilsbury, who's reputation does not glitter as it once did...

this quotation, from the book 'a question of evidence', by colin evans, is also on-target. it is specifically about the oj simpson case, but it's relevance is fairly universal


'in the vast majority of criminal trials, the single defining difference between the prosecution and the defence is one of resources. nowhere is this more pronounced than in the field of forensic science. top-quality scientific analysis is horrendously expensive, far beyond the reach of all but the deepest pockets, which means that most defendants, when confronted by the prosecution's vast army of government-funded expert witnesses, find themselves squashed into submission. the upshot of this imbalance is that, in the main, scientific testimony and conclusions go untested in court, juries tend to pretty much accept what the experts say, and that's the end of it. because it is so costly, forensic science is generally reserved for the most serious cases, and this skews the scales even further, since most violent crimes are commited by the financially disadvantaged. when rich people find themselves in court, usually, it's for some white-collar offense, that requires little if any scientific testimony.'

[Graham]

hi all

nice to see the debate flaring up again, though not so nice to see some of the old nastiness creeping back in...



oh, come on Graham, be fair

now where is anybody going to get such proof? this question is rather like aksing a religious person to prove the existance of their god... we all know it cannot be done.

if, as you believe, jh was guilty, then such evidence cannot exist. how can you then expect anyone to bring it forth. and anyway, if someone produced evidence, documentary or otherwise, that jh was totally innocent of this crime, would anyone believe it???

Hi Larue,

I've been saying for yonks that someone, somewhere, who is still alive and kicking, must know something about the A6 Case so far unpublished. Obviously I can't prove it, but it's a gut feeling...so many people were involved in the case that I think it's odds on that one or two 'secrets' may still be waiting to be told...some time. I know producing something is one thing; and believing it is another - witness the Ripper Diary. Again, I'm not saying that anything might exist to prove JH's innocence - he was guilty, the DNA shows that - but I'd like in my old romantic way to think that some new information about the case could still see the light of day.

Prior to the DNA the JimIsInnocent faction put the same question to the JimDidItites - where's your proof that he was guilty? And all that we could think of was the i.d. evidence, the gun on the bus, and JH's character. But obviously the jury thought more of VS's i.d. evidence than they did of Mrs Jones', and the rest is history.

By the way, August 22nd was the 48th anniversary of the crime. Seems in another world now.

Cheers,

Graham

[jimarilyn]

I won't pretend to understand the science behind it but more than enough has been written on the DNA thread by posters much more knowledgeable than myself to cast severe doubt on the reliability of the LCN technique which was used in this case.

As I understand it this technique is not a universally accepted one. It is only accepted in two or three countries around the world, of which the UK is one. This in itself is significant and speaks volumes.

The Forensic Science Service in Birmingham which carried out the LCN tests in this case is only as good (or otherwise) as the samples presented to it to examine. The scientists employed there do not know the origin or history of any exhibits presented to them, it is their job merely to examine them. They do not know (just like the general public) even if the very small fragment of cloth said to have been cut from Miss Storie's knickers was in fact the same piece examined almost 40 years earlier.
Why for example would a very small fragment of material be kept when other exhibits in the case were destroyed ? Very covenient.

Everyone knows of the realistic dangers of cross-contamination, especillay when exhibits are stored together. Cases of accidental cross-contamination have occurred. I wonder how many cases of deliberate contamination have occurred ?

I am often reminded of the words spoken by Bill Skitt. Mr Skitt was the former Chief Constable of Hertfordshire who was in charge of the inquiry/investigation set up by the CCRC in the late 90's. Mr Skitt told Michael Hanratty "Your brother was innocent. We just can't explain the DNA."



PS. Another typically disappointing (weatherwise) Dank Holiday