a6 murder

[Tony]

Dougie's asking the questions!

Just down the valley in which I live is a town/village called New Mills; a certain Walter Rowland came from there and by all accounts he was not to be messed with. New Mills was a very tough place when I was young.
A prostitute, Olive Balchin, was murdered in Deansgate Manchester in October 1946. She had had her head smashed in with a hammer that was found close to her body. Walter Rowland came to the police attention and he was charged with her murder. There were three witnesses against Walter Rowland; none at the scene but witnesses to Rowland’s movements etc.
Two officers investigated the crime Stainton and Douglas Nimmo of Manchester police.
Rowland went to court and was found guilty and sentenced to death. Whilst awaiting his appointment with the hangman another man serving a prison sentence in Walton, David Ware made a statement admitting the murder of Olive Balchin. Two days later he made another statement to Stainton and Nimmo. He then made a third statement to Rowland’s lawyers elaborating on the murder.
Barrister JC Jolly was asked to conduct an immediate enquiry and Ware was taken to Strangeways where Rowland’s appointment was fast approaching.

Jolly reassembled the three witnesses, one who had sold the hammer to a man, and put Ware on an ID parade.
The witnesses were given the following instructions:
“Now I want you to walk along the line and tell me whether you see anyone who resembles the man Rowland whom you have already identified. Do you understand?”

Of course Ware was not picked out he did not look like Rowland.

Rowland hanged no doubt to the relief of Nimmo and David Ware later turned himself into the police saying he could not control an urge to hit women on the head. He was found guilty of the attempted murder of Adelaine Fuidge and sentenced to life in prison. He hanged himself inside.

Detective Chief Superintendent Douglas Nimmo went on to conduct investigations into Hanratty’s Rhyl alibi. The witnesses called him “Sir” and he spoke to them using their surnames. From the interviews I have read I would have felt very uncomfortable being interviewed by Mr Nimmo.

Tony.

[Graham]

I wonder if Bill Skitt ever disclosed the reasons behind his making that statement to Michael Hanratty. Was he in possession of confidential knowledge or information, or did he say it just to be encouraging?

There's a few lines about Skitt in this Paul Foot article:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2002/may/13/ukcrime.comment

Cheers,

Graham

[Victor]

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.

Hi all,

Graham commented on the above a few days ago, the technicians doing the tests were probably deliberately kept unaware of the identity of the samples, they probably just had a reference number, did the tests and passed the raw results on to be interpretted.

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.

Paragraphs 113-126 of the judgment (http://www.hmcourts-service.gov.uk/j...6/HANRATTY.htm) clearly explains what happened to the exhibits, and of course finding Storie's DNA profile on the fragment corroborates the identity.

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 ?

Deliberate contamination can only be interpetted as someone getting hold of Hanratty's DNA, specifically his semen for the knicker fragment and non-semen cells for the handkerchief, and putting that on the samples. And all of that before Hanratty was exhumed because the "brother of Michael, son of Mary" results came before the exhumation.

KR,
Vic.

[Victor]

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

Hi Larue,

I've recently finished reading "The Perfect Victim" about Colleen Stan who was imprisoned (and abused icnluding rape) for several years, and that gives a very different picture to the one you quoted about OJ. Basically it says the Prosecution was struggling to find funds to engage experts and at one point were about to accept a plea to a much much lesser crime.

In any case with legal aid in this country, the defence costs are paid for by the taxpayer. Admittedly this was a result of the McLibel case where the European Court of Human Rights essentially said that a trial is unfair if one side has more funds than the other. That makes your "fairly universal" comment not relevent in Europe.

KR,
Vic.

[larue]

hi Vic

In any case with legal aid in this country, the defence costs are paid for by the taxpayer. Admittedly this was a result of the McLibel case where the European Court of Human Rights essentially said that a trial is unfair if one side has more funds than the other. That makes your "fairly universal" comment not relevent in Europe.

KR,
Vic.

hehehehehehehe

you're kidding me right???? so what's the European Court of Human Rights gonna do? insist that no trial can proceed till it can be proven that both defense and prosecution counsel have the exactly same budget to fight the case???

i'll believe one that when i see it mate.

[larue]

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.

i'm certain you are right aboot this Graham. for one thing, there are the dixie france suicide letters, yet to see the light of day, and probably never will. ditto the photographs of the death car interior, and the photographs keith simpson took of valerie storie's wounds. also there are the papers and other items that the police specifically told michael hanratty he would have to wait 100 years for. i would also hazard a guess that there are some interesting inter-department memos twixt scotland yard 'tecs and the forensic dept that we will never see. mind you, what information these things actually contain is anybody's guess. probably nowt earth shattering.

i was rather disapointed that nothing was forthcoming after peter alphon's death. i was hoping that maybe he had, just for the hell of it, written a true and accurate and complete account of his involvement in the case, but no. as for those still living, well, i can't see them saying anything different to what's been said before. officially the case is doubly closed, and apart from a few armchair detectives, no-one is interested in seeing that changed...

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

Cheers,

Graham

and on that very date, at some awful hour in the morning, aboot 4am, i went outside to see how light it was, or in this case was'nt. i stand by what i said before, in that i still cannot see how anyone can see another's face in a fleeting few seconds in the back of a car well enough to make a positive id. but it's all academic now ain't it??

[Victor]

so what's the European Court of Human Rights gonna do? insist that no trial can proceed till it can be proven that both defense and prosecution counsel have the exactly same budget to fight the case???

i'll believe one that when i see it mate.

Hi Larue,

No, it declares the verdict unsafe under the European Convention on Human Rights Article 6 (right to a fair trial).

The Ł60,000 the McLibel pair owed McDonalds was forgotten about.

Admittedly it's not the same as a criminal case where you would get legal aid anyway.

KR,
Vic.

[larue]

hi vic

Hi Larue,

No, it declares the verdict unsafe under the European Convention on Human Rights Article 6 (right to a fair trial).

The Ł60,000 the McLibel pair owed McDonalds was forgotten about.

true. mc d forgot aboot it as they wanted to avoid any more negative publicity. [interestingly, the defendant's were denied legal aid]

Admittedly it's not the same as a criminal case where you would get legal aid anyway.

but is there a limit on the amount of legal aid one could expect? in the event of a serious offense, would one get the full monty? i wonder, but i'm not aboot to try and find out first hand...


just as a matter of interest...[espcially the part in blue]


FAMED for his handlebar moustache and extravagant collection of personalised car number plates, Sir Gerald Nabarro was instantly recognisable across Britain.

The eccentric Conservative MP for South Worcestershire was the Boris Johnson of his day and audience figures peaked whenever he was a guest on popular radio show Any Questions?

A natural performer, he was knighted in 1963 and adored by the public and on both sides of the political spectrum. However, it was to be his high profile that would ultimately lead to his tragic fall from grace and eventual death in the space of just three years.

The sorry saga began on May 21, 1971, on the A36 from Southampton to Salisbury. At about 6pm, in the middle of rush hour, Sir Gerald’s beloved Daimler Sovereign was seen swerving at speed the wrong way round a roundabout in Totton, on the edge of the New Forest.

The flashy car – with the number plate NAB 1 – had two occupants, Sir Gerald and Margaret Mason, the secretary of his publishing business.

Several witnesses identified Sir Gerald as the driver and just over five months later he was charged with dangerous driving.

On January 24, 1972 Sir Gerald arrived at Winchester Crown Court in NAB 1, this time driven by his wife, to hear the charge.

The judge was still summing up a trial when Sir Gerald strolled into the court.

One hour later, when asked how he pleaded, Sir Gerald answered: “Not guilty, sir.”

Keith Jones, an engineer from Birmingham, said he had been driving towards Ower from Southampton when he saw a large dark saloon car behind him.

“I recognised the driver immediately as being Sir Gerald Nabarro. I think the person in the front passenger seat was a woman, but my attention was not particularly drawn to her.

“The car pulled out and overtook me, and finding difficulties with the oncoming traffic, pulled in sharply and braked, causing me to swerve and brake.”

He said the number plate of the overtaking vehicle was NAB 1, and added that he saw the car start to overtake another vehicle in a similar manner shortly before reaching a roundabout. It then went the wrong way around the roundabout.

“There was a heavy lorry coming in the other direction,” he said. “The car was tight into the roundabout and the lorry swerved to avoid it.”

Under cross-examination, Mr Jones said he had never met Sir Gerald but had often seen him on television and his photograph in the newspapers. “I have no doubt in my mind that the driver of the car was Sir Gerald,” he confirmed.

When it was Sir Gerald’s turn to take the stand he insisted that it was Mrs Mason who was at the wheel.

He told the court he had earlier attended a meeting of the women’s advisory committee of the New Forest Conservatives at the Grand Hotel in Lyndhurst, and that Mrs Mason had offered to drive the return journey so he could rest.

The 58-year-old said: “I’d had a very rough week. I had been working about 16 or 17 hours a day right through the week and I was extremely tired. I went to sleep, which was the purpose of employing the lady driver – to enable myself to sleep on long journeys.”

Mrs Mason, who followed Sir Gerald into the witness box, said she could not recall the incident.

‘Outrageous driving’ Asked if anyone other than herself had driven the car, Mrs Mason said: “Definitely not, I drove the whole way. I don’t remember any incident on the journey at all, no tooting horns, braking, nothing that I can remember untoward.”

The jury wasn’t convinced and Sir Gerald was fined Ł250 for what was described by the judge as “a deliberate and outrageous piece of driving”.

Sir Gerald was told he would be imprisoned for 12 months if he failed to pay the fine and was disqualified from driving for two years.

Mr Justice Bridge said: “The jury have convicted you of what in any view was a bad case of dangerous driving. This was not an error of judgement.

“This was a deliberate and outrageous piece of driving in which you drive you car, determined to get past a queue of slower vehicles in front even at a cost of putting their safety, and yours, in hazard. It’s no thanks to you that there was not a serious accident, but thanks to the correct action of drivers who got out of your way.”

Sir Gerald said that his political career would continue “unabated and undiminished” despite the conviction.

Six months later, on June 12, 1972, the Court of Appeal in London granted the MP leave to appeal against his conviction.

But on the day he was due to appear in court his counsel revealed he was seriously ill in hospital and unlikely to be fit enough to attend his retrial for some time. Sir Gerald had suffered two strokes since the first trial and his health was rapidly deteriorating.

Cleared Three months later the second trial began and four new witnesses gave evidence saying they saw a lady driving the car on the day in question.

The all-male jury found him not guilty and cleared of all charges.

The MP, now a shadow of his former self, once again addressed the media on the court steps: “It underlines the simple point I made, that if a man can afford to pay he will secure justice. The man who cannot afford to pay will rarely secure it".

“I have deep satisfaction that justice has been done, calumny has been defeated, procrastination and equivocation have been set aside; and that 12 clear-minded men have dutifully attended the requirements of the court.”

Sir Gerald conceded the strain of the trial had been heavy but vowed to return to Parliament, adding: “After all, I’m a mere stripling of 59.”

He died just three months after his acquittal, aged 60. His famous collection of number plates – NAB 1 TO 8 – were left to his family.


i suppose being an mp and a celebrity did'nt hurt his case either.

[Graham]

Hi Larue,

and on that very date, at some awful hour in the morning, aboot 4am, i went outside to see how light it was, or in this case was'nt. i stand by what i said before, in that i still cannot see how anyone can see another's face in a fleeting few seconds in the back of a car well enough to make a positive id. but it's all academic now ain't it??

To be fair to Valerie Storie, she did say that the gunman's face was briefly illuminated by the headlights of a passing car. Otherwise, you're correct - it doesn't start to get light in late August until about 4.30am in these parts.

i was rather disapointed that nothing was forthcoming after peter alphon's death. i was hoping that maybe he had, just for the hell of it, written a true and accurate and complete account of his involvement in the case

Maybe he did, and we haven't been told! But if he did, who would believe it? He confessed and retracted at least once, thus tearing his credibility to ribbons. I would suspect that a 'true and accurate account' as far as PLA was concerned would have been an account of the high living he was treated to, courtesy of Justice and Fox. He reminds me of Michael Barrett of Ripper Diary infamy - he too shot his credibility apart by confessing and retracting ad infinitum.

Cheers,

Graham

[Victor]

true. mc d forgot aboot it as they wanted to avoid any more negative publicity. [interestingly, the defendant's were denied legal aid]

Hi Larue,
McD definitely dropped it because of the publicity aspect, but the legal point stands, the verdict was declared unsafe by ECHR because the defendants didn't have the resources of McD and British law was changed so libel cases now qualify for legal aid.

but is there a limit on the amount of legal aid one could expect? in the event of a serious offense, would one get the full monty?

I honestly don't know but would like to know.

“It underlines the simple point I made, that if a man can afford to pay he will secure justice. The man who cannot afford to pay will rarely secure it".

Great inroads have been made to level the playing field, but the inescapeable fact is that the wealthy can always pay to go the extra mile. The question remains how to make the "extra mile" insufficient to affect the outcome? Regretably, the OJ case has all the indications of it still being sufficient to pervert the course of justice, although I would disagree in the case of Michael Jackson.

KR,
Vic.

[Limehouse]

Hi Richard,

And how about Hanratty's normal sex life, I wonder how normal it is to visit prostitutes multiple times every week?

KR,
Vic.

Is that any worse than cheating on your wife multiple times? Is it any worse than having an affair with a man you know is married?

[Andrew]

Peter Alphon's will

Hello All
I went to the Probate Office today and checked on their system. No joy I'm afraid. This could be because probate hasn't been granted yet (so try again in a few months) or, as I suspect, he didn't have any estate worth mentioning.

Regards

Andrew

[Graham]

Good work, Andrew!

I gather PLA lived in a bed-sit in Euston (?) so chances are you're right and he had no estate worth willing.

He reminds me of Sidney James' character in early Hancocks: "If you ain't got it, get it; when you got it, get rid of it!"

Cheers,

Graham

[reg1965]

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.

Hi Dupplin Muir

I, like you too, had become disinterested in the direction that the thread has been going.

Every now and then an impasse is reached and we all fess up our feelings on the case. Graham for instance is looking for one piece of incontravertable evidence that shows Hanratty's innocence.

Circumstantial evidence is very good evidence if it all points irrevocably in one direction and one direction only.

Louis Blom-Cooper quotes the great South African jurist Mr Justice Curlewis when he states that 'One of the main rules of induction....is that, in order to justify the inference of guilt, the inculpatory facts must be incompatible with the innocence of the accused and incapable of explanation on any other reasonable hypothesis than that of his guilt.' (Blom-Cooper The Semblence Of Truth, 1963. p22)

Quite clearly, under Curlewis's advice, all of the prosecutions case against Hanratty could be explained by reasonable hypotheses. No forensic evidence (including the DNA) directly links Hanratty to the scene of the crime. Cross contamination of the DNA has been shown to be quite possible by the incomplete history of the exhibits involved.

As Bruce Budowle of the FBI states 'Because of the successes encountered with STR typing, it was inevitable that some individuals would endeavor to type samples containing very minute amounts of DNA. When few copies of DNA template are present, stochastic amplification may occur, resulting in either a substantial imbalance of two alleles at a given heterozygous locus or allelic dropout' (Budowle et al., Low copy number – consideration and caution. Proc. 12th International Symposium on Human Identification, 2001). Dr Budowle also states that 'Mixture analyses and confirmation of a mixture are not reliable with LCN typing, because of imbalance of heterozygote alleles, increased production of stutter products, and allele drop-in can occur.'.

Anyway why are we bothered with all this, considering the burden of proof exists solely with the prosecution. And as I have already stated there is no case. In 2002 the crown had a fantastic opportunity to unload all of the dirt on Hanratty...but nothing was forthcoming...bar the LCNDNA, whose limitations have already been explored.

The FSS is a for profit organisation whose majority shareholder is H M Government and whose main client is H M Police force. The Caddy review of 2008 was informed only by the FSS and its stakeholders. Hardly a good footing to begin to gain public confidence on the technique of LCN! No independent view was sought.

Victor said that:

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?

What nonsense, as proved by Dr Budowle's analysis as above. Can Victor give us the patent number that the FSS hold on LCN.

Some justice system where the prosecutions evidence is subject to commercial confidentiality. It would be quite funny to see a case where Victor's DNA came up in a murder case where LCN was used. See him squeal then!

What isn't nonsense is the fact that people, who have already been convicted, looking to appeal are being quoted sums in the regions of thousands, by the FSS, for their DNA evidence to be released to them. That is a crime.

Regards
Reg

[reg1965]

Hi all

Further to that is what Dr Dan Krane says in

http://www.bioforensics.com/statements/Krane_Hoey_statement.pdf

@ p7-8

Given that LCN analyses can conceivably generate results from as little material as a single cell of an individual, the only way to be confident that results have not been obtained solely through contamination is to demonstrate conclusively with continuity records that contamination is not even remotely possible

[my emboldening]

This has not been shown in Hanratty.

Reg