a6 murder

[babybird67]

Tony

do you know what happened? Why isn't he coming back? Surely if any rules were broken, warnings are given rather than outright bans?

[babybird67]

i am up to page 335ish

now in the thread, and have just come across the discussion regarding whether the rape was 'classical' or otherwise.

Has anyone considered the rapist's odd remarks about the sexual inexperience of his victim in light of the possibility that he had just sodomised her?

Hanratty i believe was a frequent customer of prostitutes, whom, one would assume, were very sexually experienced, so it is a possibility he assumed that other women would consider practises 'usual' which actually weren't usual at all and which they would most likely have no experience of.

Then of course there is the location of the semen stain of the knickers which also suggests this might have been the case.

[NickB]

If it did happen and had been revealed it would have made public horror of the event even worse.

Another dreadful time must have been when he pushed her (by foot or hand) to test if she was dead. She would know in those excruciating moments that failing this test would result in bullets to the head.

(PS - congratulations on the job!)

[babybird67]

hi Nick

yes, it doesn't bear thinking about what she went through, does it.

Thanks for the congratulations...i am terrified of tomorrow! A bag of nerves!

[Victor]

yes, it doesn't bear thinking about what she went through, does it.

I think that any of the number of different ordeals that she went through in isolation would have been bad enough (the rape, the injuries, the operations, the recuperation, the lifetime confinment to a wheelchair, the trial, &tc), but the 40 years of accusations of having condemned an innocent man to death has to be one of the worst.

KR,
Vic.

ps. Good luck Jen!

[babybird67]

thanks Vic!

[jimarilyn]

If Hanratty did do it then there are a number of points which should be considered within the context of his actions and behaviour after he turned up at chez France the weekend after the murder.

1) The Frances' didn't make any public comment about his general demeanour beyond the fact that he was still wearing the Hepworth suit; and nothing was said about what would have been obvious blood staining. Charlotte France did his laundry for goodness sake.

2) If he had committed murder why did he dump the gun and return to his old haunts, associates and housebreaking? Why didn't he just steal a car and go on the run, taking the gun with him for protection?

3) He had Carole redye his hair the same jet black. Why not have it dyed some other colour, just like he eventually did when he finally knew he was wanted for the murder (carrot orange by all accounts).

4) When in the Republic of Ireland (to get a driving licence) and after getting involved in a road accident, why did he then get someone else, who could have identified him to write postcards back home for him?

5) It was only after he knew he was wanted in connection with the murder did he then steal a Jaguar car (for which he had recently bought skeleton keys against his Irish driving licence for 3s 6d) and went to Liverpool to try to establish an alibi. If his was guilty why didn't he go sooner to try to establish his Liverpool alibi or his lodgings in Rhyl? My previous post explains this in Hanratty's own words.

Five excellent points/questions Reg.


regards,
James

[NickB]

So when he was not wanted in connection with the murder, he acted as normally as possible. Then when he was wanted, he went on the run.

This seems to be exactly what a guilty man would do.

[Graham]

1) The Frances' didn't make any public comment about his general demeanour beyond the fact that he was still wearing the Hepworth suit; and nothing was said about what would have been obvious blood staining. Charlotte France did his laundry for goodness sake.

According to VS, the gunman told her that he 'must not get blood on his clothes', or words to that effect, which is why he asked her to help him get the body out of the car. Presumably was careful enough not to get blood on his clothes.

2) If he had committed murder why did he dump the gun and return to his old haunts, associates and housebreaking? Why didn't he just steal a car and go on the run, taking the gun with him for protection?

Because he wanted to totally shut out what he had done. It's been said plenty of times that JH went into "self-denial mode" after the crime, and to act normally is part of such mode, or so I would imagine. Why would stealing a car and going on the run, gun in hand, be a more 'normal' thing to do?

4) When in the Republic of Ireland (to get a driving licence) and after getting involved in a road accident, why did he then get someone else, who could have identified him to write postcards back home for him?

Sending postcards was IMHO all part of his 'denial mode' - an attempt to convince himself and others that all was well with him. I can't think of any other reason why he sent postcards. He had to get someone to write them for him because he was virtually illiterate.

If his was guilty why didn't he go sooner to try to establish his Liverpool alibi or his lodgings in Rhyl?

Because, as I believe, he genuinely thought he could get away with it if he just acted 'normally' and didn't attract attention to himself, as NickB comments.

Cheers,

Graham

[Victor]

So when he was not wanted in connection with the murder, he acted as normally as possible.

...including dyeing his fading hair back to black.

Then when he was wanted, he went on the run.

...and tried to adopt a disguise by changing his hair colour, but it went wrong and he ended up with "carrot orange" hair.

This seems to be exactly what a guilty man would do.

Especially one who originally thought there were no surviving witnesses, so what did it matter what colour his hair was? It's only after he learns that VS survived and he was wanted that he dyed it a different colour.

KR,
Vic.

[Admin]

One matter needs to be cleared up on the boards. As a rule, Casebook Admin does not comment on posters who have been banned or otherwise removed from the site. However, because of the particulars of this situation, we wish to make it clear that the poster Reg1965 WAS NOT deleted because of any “threat of violence” against another poster. The claim was made in regards to post #2961 where Reg1965 made a comment about his “brother” looking through the Brighton phonebook (for Victor). Posters can look at the post and the posts leading up to it themselves and make up their own mind regarding the actual seriousness of the “threat”. However, it should be made clear that the argument between the two posters was NOT a factor in Reg1965 being removed from the site.

There will be no further discussion or comment from us regarding this situation.

[Tony]

The Forensic Boys:

I do not know anything about Forensic or DNA or come to that any other professional evidence such as ballistics other than what I am told.
And in that regard I am in the same boat here as everyone on here including Reg, Vic et al.
If we are at a trial and maybe on the jury we are told what’s what. We don’t go into the lab to see the tests done for ourselves. If the Crown’s expert witness Dr Skuse tells me The Birmingham Six had nitro-glycerine on their hands for instance I would probably accept it as a proven fact. I might not know that playing cards could give the same results. I would probably think I was looking at 6 bombers rather than 6 card players. Well I would, wouldn’t I?

But I wouldn’t know anything about the tests or how they were carried out or anything more than what I was told. And in that respect I may be in the same position as a judge who was told by an expert witness that 40 year old DNA proved an executed man guilty.
Similarly if a home office pathologist said a man was shot with a .32 and a .38 turns up in court as the murder weapon and none of the celebrated counsel say anything about it; well is it my place to question them? No.

Personally I wouldn’t know one fingerprint from another.

But permit me to give two fairly recent examples of expert investigation work:

1: Samantha Bissett and her four year old daughter were murdered in May 1994 by Robert Napper. He was (eventually) identified by his fingerprints at the crime scene, Miss Bissett’s flat.

Initially no unusual fingerprints were found and that was because Robert Napper’s prints and Samantha Bisset’s prints were almost identical and the fingerprint boys thought they were from the same person.
Later when Napper was charged with her murder the experts agreed that it was almost impossible to tell their prints apart. Coincidentally both Napper and Miss Bissett had the same birthday.

2: Milly Dowler went missing on her way home from school in March 2002 in Walton on Thames; her body was found in September the same year.

In January 2003 a DNA sample was found on a coffee cup in a church that was broken into in Sunderland and this matched a stain on Milly’s slip in her bedroom. DNA samples were taken from 55 men connected with the church but none matched the coffee cup sample. Police came to the conclusion that the match was no more than a coincidence and did not follow that line of enquiry giving the explanation that it would have been odd for Milly to have had an intimate contact with a Sunderland burglar.
Rather a cautionary tale about the value of DNA samples for identification purposes.

Funny old thing forensic evidence isn’t it?

Tony.

[Limehouse]

Excellent stuff Tony. Well done.

[Victor]

Hi Tony,

As I have mentioned before there are several distinct steps in Forensics:-
1. Scene of Crime - Evidence Collection
2. Analysis
3. Interpetation

Usually these are done by different people, and in a well managed Lab the evidence is identified by unique codes and no names or other identifying details.

If we are at a trial and maybe on the jury we are told what’s what. We don’t go into the lab to see the tests done for ourselves.

And normally neither do the experts who are giving their opinions.

If the Crown’s expert witness Dr Skuse tells me The Birmingham Six had nitro-glycerine on their hands for instance I would probably accept it as a proven fact.

And it is true, they did.

I might not know that playing cards could give the same results. I would probably think I was looking at 6 bombers rather than 6 card players. Well I would, wouldn’t I?

Now, this is where the complications arise. This is interpretation of the result, which has itself not changed, the 6 people had traces of nitro-glycerine on their hands.

But I wouldn’t know anything about the tests or how they were carried out or anything more than what I was told. And in that respect I may be in the same position as a judge who was told by an expert witness that 40 year old DNA proved an executed man guilty.

Which is where people who accept that explanation are perfectly entitled to ask "Please provide an alternative explanation for the observed results", which in the Birmingham Six is "The nitro-glycerine came from playing cards"

Similarly if a home office pathologist said a man was shot with a .32 and a .38 turns up in court as the murder weapon and none of the celebrated counsel say anything about it; well is it my place to question them? No.

But that is incompatable with the known facts (cartridges cases from the Vienna matching those from the scene, matching those later test fired from the recovered weapon as part of the ballistic tests) and the possibility exists that a typo occured, or the editor or fact-checker made a mistake, or numerous other plausible explanations for the discrepancy.

Personally I wouldn’t know one fingerprint from another.

I doubt many people would, but you could look at two images of fingerprints and say whether they were the same or not, if they were at an appropriate magnification.

Initially no unusual fingerprints were found and that was because Robert Napper’s prints and Samantha Bisset’s prints were almost identical and the fingerprint boys thought they were from the same person.

Which surely must be considered a coincidence, proving that they do happen in other cases.

Later when Napper was charged with her murder the experts agreed that it was almost impossible to tell their prints apart. Coincidentally both Napper and Miss Bissett had the same birthday.

Did their parents have fertility treatment from the same Doctor? Or maybe there is some as yet undiscovered relationship between fingerprints and birthday? Or it's an "adventitious match", which is the geneticists way of saying coincidence.

In January 2003 a DNA sample was found on a coffee cup in a church that was broken into in Sunderland and this matched a stain on Milly’s slip in her bedroom. DNA samples were taken from 55 men connected with the church but none matched the coffee cup sample. Police came to the conclusion that the match was no more than a coincidence and did not follow that line of enquiry giving the explanation that it would have been odd for Milly to have had an intimate contact with a Sunderland burglar.

Which again is interpretation of the results.

Rather a cautionary tale about the value of DNA samples for identification purposes.

Then check out this....http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/20...encenews.crime

Yes it's a piece claiming that DNA fingerprinting isn't foolproof, by the chief scientist who developed the technique.

Definitely food for thought, the possibility that the DNA evidence in Hanratty is an "adventitious match" exists, it's just very very very unlikely.

KR,
Vic.

[babybird67]

Definitely food for thought, the possibility that the DNA evidence in Hanratty is an "adventitious match" exists, it's just very very very unlikely.

KR,
Vic.

The problem with this for me, Vic, along with acknowledging the extreme implausibility of an 'adventitious match' on two exhibits which also match eachother, is the corroboration of the results by the original evidence.

You have the witness identification, not just by VS, who was there, and ought to know better than anybody who attacked her, but the further two witnesses who later saw JH in the car, who both, i believe, picked JH out at an ID parade.

You have the lack of verifiable alibi and the fact that JH himself knowingly and willingly gave a false alibi to start with...if he had a verifiably true alibi, why would that be necessary?

You have the fact that the rapist's blood type matched JH (ok, it was common, but along with all the other evidence, it does start to build up the picture of guilt to my mind).

You have the gun/handkerchief and these items being left precisely where JH habitually left things, by his own admission.

The DNA results are not standing alone by any stretch of the imagination; they fit perfectly into the evidence regarding the case that was previously known to the Jury back in 1961.

We have to look at the whole picture...it speaks volumes to my mind.