a6 murder

[Limehouse]

the jury were well aware that Ms Storie had picked out an innocent man from the first ID parade, but they were also aware that Hanratty had not been on that parade to be chosen.

Too much emphasis i think is given to VS's identification when there were two independent witnesses to the driver of the Morris Minor later that morning, who both picked out Hanratty from an ID parade as being that man. NOBODY who allegedly saw the Morris Minor driver that morning picked out Alphon when confronted by him.

Three identifications of Hanratty either at the scene, or later in the murder car...coincidence? Unlikely, imo.

Hi Babybird,

If you are referring to the two men driving to work who saw the Morris Minor being driven erractically, then you are incorrect. Only one of those men identified Hanratty as the driver and he was the one furtherest away from Hanratty at the time.

[babybird67]

hi Limehouse

no I was not; and i am not wrong.

I was referring to the two independent sightings of Hanratty, once during the near crash, in which the driver of the car picked him out, but the passenger picked out somebody else, and the other when the car was turning into Avondale Crescent later that morning.

That is why i said two independent witnesses, who saw the car and its driver at different times - Trower and Skillett. A coincidence that they both were able to correctly identify Hanratty as the driver of that car that morning? Is there any reason to suspect either of them would lie about who they saw?

I know VS is the devil incarnate who only wanted somebody, anybody, to be punished for raping her, crippling her and killing her lover (sarcasm, before anyone thinks i actually espouse this perverse view) but what were the motives for Skillett and Trower to lie?

[babybird67]

i really despair sometimes...

i really do not understand what it will take to convince some people of the guilt of Hanratty, short of his ghost returning to earth and finally confessing to actually committing this horrible crime!

Look at the big picture:

His handkerchief was wrapped around the murder weapon;

the murder weapon, along with his handkerchief, were found where he admitted he dumped items he no longer wanted;

empty cartridge cases which came from the murder weapon were found where he was proven to be staying the night before the murder;

his blood group was determined to be the same as the rapist's from contemporary testing of his semen;

he initially gave a false alibi;

when his initial alibi collapsed around his ears, he invented another alibi, also unverifiable, and with so many holes in it you could easily drain your vegetables through it;

he was identified by the only living witness to the crime, who was raped by him, and ought to know who it was who stole her life away;

he was identified in the murder car by TWO other independent witnesses, who picked him from a line-up;

he admitted to enquiring after getting a gun and intending to do hold ups;

and, the piece de resistance, DNA testing has not only proven that the only other viable suspect, Peter Alphon "could not have been" (read it, it's unequivocal, and was agreed to by the Hanratty family Counsel) the A6 murderer, but has proven that the semen deposited on the rape victim's knickers matched Hanratty's DNA (and the handkerchief!) to the greatest extent in which it is possible to be certain of anything; that the distribution of the semen stains was 'typical' of an act of sex taking place, and that NO OTHER DNA was found, other than Hanratty's, VS's and MG's...an argument both against contamination, and against anyone else being responsible for that crime other than James Hanratty.

I really do not see how much more evidence is required before people actually ACCEPT what the evidence points unequivocally to...that Hanratty was guilty as charged, and was convicted correctly.

if we had this much evidence against any suspect in the Ripper crimes, i think Casebook would have closed down by now!

[NickB]

Also I think too much emphasis has been placed on the short time she had a good view of him during the incident. Anyone listening to a man talking for 5 to 6 hours, in close proximity, would be able to recognise his voice.

[Limehouse]

no I was not; and i am not wrong.

I was referring to the two independent sightings of Hanratty, once during the near crash, in which the driver of the car picked him out, but the passenger picked out somebody else, and the other when the car was turning into Avondale Crescent later that morning.

That is why i said two independent witnesses, who saw the car and its driver at different times - Trower and Skillett. A coincidence that they both were able to correctly identify Hanratty as the driver of that car that morning? Is there any reason to suspect either of them would lie about who they saw?

I know VS is the devil incarnate who only wanted somebody, anybody, to be punished for raping her, crippling her and killing her lover (sarcasm, before anyone thinks i actually espouse this perverse view) but what were the motives for Skillett and Trower to lie?

In no way does my post suggest that Trowler and Skillet were lying. Neither does my post disrespect VS in any way. I have never even come close to suggesting VS is the devil incarnate. For her sake, I am concerned that the correct person be identified as the person responsible for destroying hers and many others' lives. I am not disrespecting VS in anyway by expressing the view that I do not believe Hanratty was responsible and I do not hold VS responsible for possibly the wrong person being identified.

[babybird67]

hi Limehouse

In no way does my post suggest that Trowler and Skillet were lying. Neither does my post disrespect VS in any way. I have never even come close to suggesting VS is the devil incarnate. For her sake, I am concerned that the correct person be identified as the person responsible for destroying hers and many others' lives. I am not disrespecting VS in anyway by expressing the view that I do not believe Hanratty was responsible and I do not hold VS responsible for possibly the wrong person being identified.

I accept that you don't and i did not intend to imply that you personally hold VS responsible.

Nevertheless views have been expressed on this thread accusing the woman of lying; this may be the view of some posters, but then the question needs to be asked, why would the OTHER independent witnesses who placed Hanratty in the murder car that morning be lying? Because they were independent of eachother, i would find it exceptionally implausible that both of them were either lying or mistaken about the man they saw in that car. VS's identification evidence was therefore only a third of that which the jury heard which placed JH either at the scene of the crime or in the murder car later that same day.

If you don't think Trower and Skillet were lying, do you think they were both, independently, mistaken about who they saw? Combined with eachother's evidence, and that of VS's, the defence has to rely on three honest witnesses all being mistaken about seeing who they saw...is that plausible?

As i have said, add these identifications together with all the other evidence and you get a bigger picture, one which points in one direction only, in my opinion, and that is to James Hanratty's guilt, however unpalatable that may be to some.

You say it is for her sake you are concerned the correct person was identified: he was. She knew it. DNA proved it.

[babybird67]

hi Nick

Also I think too much emphasis has been placed on the short time she had a good view of him during the incident. Anyone listening to a man talking for 5 to 6 hours, in close proximity, would be able to recognise his voice.

excellent point. It has always seemed to me a more secure identification since she asked them to speak. I've already pointed out the problems of him doing his best to obscure his features, thus the voice would have been very significant imo.

[NickB]

And by obscuring his features this made it more difficult for him to be recognised – not less. After all, this is why he dyed the hair.

This must be considered against the claim that the dyed hair made him stand out.

There is another more subtle reason why I think the defence lawyer did not ask for everyone to wear skull caps in the id parade. (As the police had considered using them, presumably they would have agreed to the request.)

The dyed hair did not necessarily mean that he was the police suspect. But if a part of his strange hair became noticable underneath the skull cap, it would be obvious that he was - because Valerie would deduce that they had covered everyone’s hair to avoid that person standing out.

[Graham]

Check out this link - very appropriate name for the reporter, methinks!

http://www.hotpress.com/archive/392670.html

Graham

[babybird67]

lol Graham!

you have a very naughty sense of humour!

[Graham]

you have a very naughty sense of humour!

I'm a very naughty man, Jen...

Graham

[Victor]

And by obscuring his features this made it more difficult for him to be recognised – not less. After all, this is why he dyed the hair.

This must be considered against the claim that the dyed hair made him stand out.

There is another more subtle reason why I think the defence lawyer did not ask for everyone to wear skull caps in the id parade. (As the police had considered using them, presumably they would have agreed to the request.)

The dyed hair did not necessarily mean that he was the police suspect. But if a part of his strange hair became noticable underneath the skull cap, it would be obvious that he was - because Valerie would deduce that they had covered everyone’s hair to avoid that person standing out.

Hi Nick,

Do you think Kleinman ignored the skull caps because they might eliminate the big obvious difference between orange-haired Hanratty and the "dark haired" rapist gunman? It's the one thing that was definitely different, so covering it up would have made him more recognisable!

KR,
Vic.

[larue]

i really do not understand what it will take to convince some people of the guilt of Hanratty, short of his ghost returning to earth and finally confessing to actually committing this horrible crime!

do you see it as your metier to try and convince the unbelievers?? if so, all i can say is good luck...

I really do not see how much more evidence is required before people actually ACCEPT what the evidence points unequivocally to...that Hanratty was guilty as charged, and was convicted correctly.

obviously more then has been seen so for, otherwise there would be a concensus.

if we had this much evidence against any suspect in the Ripper crimes, i think Casebook would have closed down by now!

which makes me wonder why those members who are totally convinced one way or the other still keep posting? i think Steve had the best idea.

[NickB]

... covering it up would have made him more recognisable!

That could have been the only reason. But if Kleinman was thinking that, one wonders how strongly he believed in his client’s innocence.

It gave the defence team a good ‘carrot and bananas’ moment at the trial anyway.

[babybird67]

hi larue

do you see it as your metier to try and convince the unbelievers?? if so, all i can say is good luck...

not necessarily, but when objections to the evidence pop up i think they need to be challenged for balance for people new to the case.

obviously more then has been seen so for, otherwise there would be a concensus.

Which, as i say, i cannot understand at all...for JH's guilt, there is evidence; for JH's innocence, there is no evidence whatsoever, merely blind belief and speculation about the guilt of others, whom more recent evidence has shown actually were innocent! I can only conclude some people cannot see the wood for the trees.

which makes me wonder why those members who are totally convinced one way or the other still keep posting? i think Steve had the best idea.

I am still reading Woffinden and still new things keep occurring to me. I enjoy posting and i enjoy reading the responses of all the members, even those who disagree with me; nobody ever learned anything from discussing something with themselves did they?

And you never know, one day somebody might post up a convincing counter-argument which might make me change my mind! Unlikely, but possible!

all the best larue!