a6 murder

[babybird67]

lol Sam

imagine the stress on the server if every response had to include the full postings before and so on...

I'm new to the A6 murder thread, not Casebook Reg, and i always prune postings to quote the relevant parts...i do it verbatim and i dont alter meanings...this is standard practise in academia and on these boards i believe...hope that explains why i pick and choose what to quote.

[babybird67]

Hi babybird67


Reading about the case would be a good idea. I am a very poor man and my own library of A6 books is the holy of holies. My very good friend Tony has been known to donate books on the case to all and sundry. My advice would be to PM him.

Graham has kindly offered to loan me some of his books (thanks Graham!) so i should be much better informed within a few months.

You have emphasized what you liked. But the full post by my good friend James actually read.

Not what i liked. What i found interesting and wanted to comment upon.

If you knew anything about this case you would have realized that certain important documents about Ms Stories evidence were withheld from both the defence and the jury at the original trial.

(my emboldening) That's a bit harsh Reg! I have read up a lot on the net and all the information up to about p.260 of this thread...i admit i have lots more to learn, hence asking for books, but to say if i knew "anything" about the case is a little patronising...i do know quite a bit, despite being new...I am a fast learner and an intelligent woman.

These Interview statements recorded that Ms Storie doubted that when the killer said call me Jim, that that was his real name along with the fact that she said that her recollection of the killers face is fading.

I would have doubted that too. In fact i would have doubted everything he had said and still do...because he was a serial criminal and a liar. Just because she doubted it doesnt mean he couldnt have been called Jim. She honestly admitted her memory of his face was fading which is a credit to her...which is also why she used her other major sense, hearing, to help her establish the identity of her attacker.

I do not lack sympathy for Ms Stories plight but I do have an issue with the fact that she went into the witness box at both the pre-trial hearing and the trail itself and stated without doubt that Hanratty was the killer, having initially described someone who didn't look like Hanratty and first picked out someone who she later admitted looked like Alphon.

She had no doubt Hanratty was the killer. She was attacked by him. It is your opinion that she described someone who did not resemble Hanratty. I dont believe she did. Nobody resembled Alphon more than Alphon himself yet she did not pick him out of that line-up.

DNA evidence cannot confirm anybody's guilt.

but it has. It has confimed that VS and JH had sex. She only had sex that night with her boyfriend and her rapist. These people are experts in assessing DNA and have said absolutely conclusively that VS and JH had sex as shown by the distribution of the semen stains. You cannot get round this no matter what you argue. One presumes such stains are examined routinely in cases of rape to establish whether sex did take place; there is no doubt about it. Also, how can contamination have taken place when the surrounding two envelopes containing the fragment of knickers would have shown damage/stains of the contamination? Or are you suggesting the spilled vial somehow managed to open both envelopes before spilling itself only on the knicker fragment, which still would not explain how the DNA found is in the distribution required to prove that VS and JH had sex, nor how it would have managed almost miraculously to erode the real rapist's DNA whilst leaving VS's and MG's extant!

You have plenty of that to do. It is the most fascinating case ever in British legal history. Forget JTR.

Agreed! who would have thought a solved case could be just an enthralling as an unsolved one!

best wishes Reg

Jen

[Graham]

If you knew anything about this case you would have realized that certain important documents about Ms Stories evidence were withheld from both the defence and the jury at the original trial.

Reg,

even those of us who believe in Hanratty's guilt do not consider that he had a scrupulously fair trial. I have always said that had he not changed his alibi, and had he not taken the stand, he would almost certainly have been found not guilty. We are all aware that the defence didn't receive every document that it should have, and that is to the shame of the judicial system in 1962.

Babybird is obviously keenly interested in this case, rapidly assimiliating all the information on this thread, and has her own opinions. She should be encouraged, and I think you can do better than coming out with 'if you knew anything about this case'. That sounds awfully defensive, to me.

Graham

[reg1965]

I'd recommend that folks should try to "snip" any quotes appropriately, Reg - not doing so can make them very tedious to read. A bit of judicious pruning never did anyone any harm, so if I were you, I'd get yer judicious prunes out and fill your boots

</friendly advice>

Dear Samuel
Ordinarily I'd follow your advice but in this case I will make an exception. If you read the full post by Jimarylin it makes itself clear and therefore bypassing all of the out-of-context nonsense inferred by Babybird67.
I didn't know that you were that interested in the A6 murder. So why are you sticking your snout in over this eh? Taking sides are we?
Yours truly
Reginald

[reg1965]

imagine the stress on the server if every response had to include the full postings before and so on...

I'm new to the A6 murder thread, not Casebook Reg, and i always prune postings to quote the relevant parts...i do it verbatim and i dont alter meanings...this is standard practise in academia and on these boards i believe...hope that explains why i pick and choose what to quote.

I can imagine an academic paper before a tutor which leaves the relevant half of the facts unquoted....FAIL!!!

Get real will ya!

You took James' quote out of context, full stop.

Saying that you haven't read any of the books on the case proves just how ignorant you are.

There is and never was any empirical evidence against James Hanratty.

The worrying thing here is that you were introduced to this thread by the computer virus that is known to us all here as Victor!

[reg1965]

Not what i liked. What i found interesting and wanted to comment upon.

So that gives you license to not fully quote someone and then bash every one who thinks, for very good reasons, that Hanratty was innocent?

[reg1965]

but it has. It has confimed that VS and JH had sex. She only had sex that night with her boyfriend and her rapist. These people are experts in assessing DNA and have said absolutely conclusively that VS and JH had sex as shown by the distribution of the semen stains. You cannot get round this no matter what you argue. One presumes such stains are examined routinely in cases of rape to establish whether sex did take place; there is no doubt about it. Also, how can contamination have taken place when the surrounding two envelopes containing the fragment of knickers would have shown damage/stains of the contamination? Or are you suggesting the spilled vial somehow managed to open both envelopes before spilling itself only on the knicker fragment, which still would not explain how the DNA found is in the distribution required to prove that VS and JH had sex, nor how it would have managed almost miraculously to erode the real rapist's DNA whilst leaving VS's and MG's extant!

DNA cannot prove anything that you said. Do some work and find out for yourself rather than just swallowing the party line.
The knicker fragment was cut the day after Hanratty's green suit was examined. Contamination could quite easily have happened here. Don't try to deny it, it only takes a cell to transfer for contamination to occur.
The hanky was handled by all and sundry and stored in the same box as Hanratty's other garments.
Once you have a mixture of DNA, which you must have by what you have said then LCN is totally unreliable in untangling whose profile is which.
Go figure it out. Maybe Victor can help you out!!

[reg1965]

Reg,

even those of us who believe in Hanratty's guilt do not consider that he had a scrupulously fair trial. I have always said that had he not changed his alibi, and had he not taken the stand, he would almost certainly have been found not guilty. We are all aware that the defence didn't receive every document that it should have, and that is to the shame of the judicial system in 1962.

good for you.

Babybird is obviously keenly interested in this case, rapidly assimiliating all the information on this thread, and has her own opinions. She should be encouraged, and I think you can do better than coming out with 'if you knew anything about this case'. That sounds awfully defensive, to me.

Graham

(my emboldening)

Babybird's first, and to that matter only post of note, exposed her own ignorance of the case, that is not my fault. She also admitted that she had got to post# 1500 odd, so that is not all, as you said above, which is in bold.

Quite rightly she is entitled to her opinions. The same way as I am entitled to mine, as this is a discussion forum. As for the defensive statement I would like to direct the statement to you. Because I don't think that you know much about this case at all.

You bury your head in the sand over Stories testimony and can't be bothered to find out anything about LCN DNA. You just bought Leonard Millers take on the whole thing hook, line and sinker.

You're an ostrich man.

Go on, threaten to leave the thread again, like you did last time. Then you came back...with very little to add I must say.

I won't miss you.
Reg

[babybird67]

Dear Samuel
Ordinarily I'd follow your advice but in this case I will make an exception. If you read the full post by Jimarylin it makes itself clear and therefore bypassing all of the out-of-context nonsense inferred by Babybird67.
I didn't know that you were that interested in the A6 murder. So why are you sticking your snout in over this eh? Taking sides are we?
Yours truly
Reginald

Reg...how incredibly rude to Sam. You really ought to read up about netiquette. I will take up your accusation of quoting "out-of-context nonsense" in your next post, and the unwarranted vitriolic invective therein.

[babybird67]

I can imagine an academic paper before a tutor which leaves the relevant half of the facts unquoted....FAIL!!!

What relevant facts have a left unquoted Reg? how do you know what was relevant to what i wished to say? You are not the arbiter of what i find relevant or irrelevant nor will you ever be. Don't preach to me about academia...i have a first class honours degree and a Masters with distinction so i know a little bit about taking relevant quotes thank you!

You took James' quote out of context, full stop.

I was not quoting "James" as such but what James had quoted that Hanratty had allegedly said because what Hanratty had said struck me as a very odd turn of phrase. I quoted that phrase because that PHRASE struck me as odd...the rest of the quote was irrelevant to MY point, therefore i did not quote it.

Saying that you haven't read any of the books on the case proves just how ignorant you are.

I beg your pardon? There are many types of ignorance, Reg, and i am never ashamed to admit mine. Just because i have not yet read the books does not mean i am "ignorant" about the case, as i am confident my contributions testify to. I have read online, and half of this mammoth thread in which there are extensive batches of information. My "ignorance" of the case will be dispelled easily because i am an avid and ardent reader; YOUR ignorance, which is absolutely appalling imo, is unlikely to be redressed so easily.

There is and never was any empirical evidence against James Hanratty.

Three letters for you: D N A.

And the lack of empirical evidence against Alphon, even down to denying the fact that both prosecution and defence agreeing he could not possibly be the A6 murderer since the results of the DNA testing, has not prevented you and others from publicly LIBELLING the man and accusing him of being the murderer has it?

The worrying thing here is that you were introduced to this thread by the computer virus that is known to us all here as Victor!

Known to us all? Reg, your behaviour and treatment of me as a newbie to the thread has quite frankly shocked me, and i am not easily shockable, and i would like to think that you stand alone in your perniciious and vitriolic attacks on me, who has done nothing other than disagree with your stand that Hanratty is innocent.

Truly, if i were you, i would take a step back, look at your postings, and re-evaluate how you think you are coming across on here, and what standards of behaviour you deem acceptable.

[babybird67]

for Reg

it's late and i am tired and somewhat bewildered by your absolutely incomprehensible attack on me and your lack of manners, therefore I shall address your other points tomorrow.

[Sam Flynn]

Dear Samuel
Ordinarily I'd follow your advice but in this case I will make an exception. If you read the full post by Jimarylin it makes itself clear and therefore bypassing all of the out-of-context nonsense inferred by Babybird67.

All you had to do was snip it out, Reg. Most of "your" post was quotes - which is a pity, because you had some interesting things to say.[quote]

I didn't know that you were that interested in the A6 murder.

I'm not particularly, but as I was passing by I just thought I'd offer a friendly tip on basic message-board etiquette, after you'd stated quite plainly that you weren't going to use any.

[Graham]

What a sad little man you are, Reg.

Graham

[NickB]

I would like to help steer this thread back to reasoned and good-natured discussion by considering the evidence (revealed at the appeal) of the bus conductress Pamela Patt.

She said that at 6.10am on 24 August a young man of dirty appearance, wearing a dirty raincoat, got on her bus and went to the upper deck. He was “about 25, 5 ft. 7 ins., medium build, thick wavy hair, mousey colour, clean shaven”.

This man was the only person who was alone on the upper deck that day and thereby had an opportunity to deposit the gun and cartridges unseen, as the back seat had to be lifted off for the purpose.

I realise this is not an accurate description of Hanratty’s hair, although we do know the black was fading because he needed to have it re-tinted black on 26 August.

Otherwise it sounds pretty much like how JH would have looked after a rough night’s sleep, then got up early to make the deposit before the bus became too busy to do it unnoticed.

It certainly does not sound like Charles France, as has been suggested in some posts.

Because someone shouted out “ask the conductress” at the trial it has been assumed that she had evidence in JH’s favour. But it does not look that way.

[Victor]

it's late and i am tired and somewhat bewildered by your absolutely incomprehensible attack on me and your lack of manners, therefore I shall address your other points tomorrow.

Hi Jen,

I'm really sorry you've had such a brutal reception from some users on this thread, fortunately Graham and Julie have been more welcoming.

I noted the accusation from Reg that I've given you a biased account of the case and I hope that that isn't so. You did ask for my opinion in the chat room on Friday night and I obviously said I believe the CCRC when they state that the DNA conclusively proves Hanratty raped Storie and therefore killed Gregsten.

You will come to recognise the bizarre tactic of questioning the poster rather than addressing the point, such as Reg questioning Sam's presence on this thread, or James (jimarilyn) recently asking why I was reading the JFK thread, as if it's a crime to read comments posted on a public forum.

It's also quite amusing to hear Reg talking about mixtures of DNA profiles on the hanky, when they only found 1 profile on it, Hanratty's, and only in the places on the hanky where there were visible mucus staining, the other areas gave nothing. This in itself demonstrates that either the contamination was so specific that only JH's DNA transferred out of the supposedly numerous other people who handled it at the committal and trial, and only in the places that were snot stained which is precisely where you'd expect people to AVOID handling a dirty hanky.

And then you get the "framed" theories of how Dixie France got hold of the hanky out of JH's dirty laundry that his wife was washing, wrapped it around the gun and dumped it on the bus. Although how he got hold of the actual murder weapon is the subject of some twisted theories involving Alphon and Southend pier.

KR,
Vic.