a6 murder

[SteveS]

Hi Graham

Don't be ridiculous, Steve. That's what VS said and you know it. Or do you want to rubbish everything she said about what happened that night? And if you do, by the way, you wouldn't be the first.

Sorry mate, and I know that Valerie wanted justice but her account is all we have, and is not as Foot, Woffinden, Miller et al have said are fact.

Personally I believe that the first fact of the case was when John Kerr found Valerie. It all started from there. Everthing is else is just witness testimony. Rightly or wrongly. This is inescapable I'm afraid.

And where, pray, did YOU get all YOUR facts from concerning the A6 Case, if not from Justice, Russell, Foot, Woffinden et al? As I've said before, long ago on this thread before you graced us with your presence (most welcome, incidentally), Miller's book is not a great work of literature, but should be taken as proposing the opposite view to those authors who supported Hanratty. I confess I lost patience with Miller when he went off into fantasy-land with his supposed JH 'dialogues' or whatever you want to call them, but he serves a purpose. I'd really like to know who the bloke is, actually.

Regards,

Graham

Actually, along with the books, I have read quite a lot from the press at the time, and plenty of research into DNA.

I will contact Zoillus Press and ask them for a forwarding address and try to find out more. I am not at all confident of a reply. But who knows?

Thnx
Steve

[Graham]

Steve,

I enjoy your posts, but I honestly think that you are missing the point here. First, I don't think even the most ardent JimDidItIte would agree with the trial verdict on the basis of the prosecution evidence adduced at the trial.
Second, whether the DNA evidence at the appeal is flawed or not is immaterial: it was accepted by a court of law, and the defence-lawyers have not, as far as I'm aware, planned a further appeal. The inference is that Michael Mansfield et al accept the DNA evidence. Small comfort to those who still steadfastly stand by Hanratty's innocence, but the fact is that he has been proven to be guilty by standards accepted by those who legally represented him. Can't really be plainer than that.

As I see it, and have always seen it, the only infallible evidence to prove that Hanratty was elsewhere on the night of the crime would be for someone to prove that he was in Rhyl or Liverpool or wherever. His signature in the guest-book of a hotel or a B&B would do it. The sworn statement of a mate of his in Liverpool would do it. But there never was, and now never will be, any such evidence forthcoming. Hanratty never could prove that he was not in the Morris Minor on the night of August 22nd.

At the start of this post I referred to the prosecution evidence at the trial. It is said by eye-witnesses that even the learned Judge showed some surprise when a verdict of 'guilty' was announced. I remain surprised to this day. I'm convinced it was Hanratty's switch of alibi, and the i.d. evidence of Valerie Storie, whose plight aroused the sympathy of all, that convinced the jury. Said it before, and I'll say it again, had he stuck to his Liverpool alibi I reckon he'd have been in with a chance. On the opposite side of the coin, Tony Mancini was found not guilty of the Brighton Trunk Murder (I've referred to this before), to the great surprise of everyone including himself, and years later did actually confess.

Cheers,

Graham

[Victor]

Hi Graham,

Absolutely perfect post.

The evidential samples must be shown by complete and unequivocal records that contamination could not have occurred.

Hi Steve,

In an ideal world that would be the case, and everyone should have appreciated that before the tests in 1995 that that ideal could never be achieved. The scientists did the best with what was available, and the knowledge of the storage providence of the knicker fragment, and formed an opinion with that knowledge in place.

The results were that Hanratty's semen was on that knicker fragment, along with semen "attributed" to MG, and VS vaginal fluids, and no-one else's DNA.

The expert opinion of those results was that Hanratty was the rapist and therefore the murderer because of the lack of any other semen DNA (other than MG for which a plausible explanation was determined).

No one can be excluded as a suspect as a result of an LCN test.

The basis for this statement is that allele peaks can drop-out or vanish, and allele peaks can drop-in or appear, therefore it is a possibility that one profile can morph into another, but the chance of this happening is negligible, and for it to happen to all 13-26 allele peaks in a sample has never been reproduced.

LCN mixed profiles cannot be interpreted reliably at present.
(the above are because LCN DNA testing is complicated by unreproducible stochastic effects of which there are many different types.)

No. The unreproducible stocastic effects of LCN can complicate mixed profile interpretation, but they can also not occur at all, and the possibility for them to consistently or reproducibly happen to each of the tests is also negligible.

Mixed profile interpretation is complex but not impossible with all forms of DNA testing including SGM+

Tissue source of the DNA cannot be inferred using LCN.

Apart from sperm heads.

Also with SGM+.

The time at which a sample of DNA was deposited cannot be known.

Absolutely true but irrelevent.

Any activity resulting in a DNA deposit on a sample cannot be known.

Absolutely true but irrelevent.

Any DNA (not just LCN) profile cannot prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt alone.

Absolutely true, but it can say Hanratty's and Gregsten's semen was on that knicker fragment, along with Storie's vaginal fluids, and no other DNA. Now find a plausible explanation for that. The only one that the majority of the expert opinion agreed with is that Hanratty and Gregsten and no-one else had sexual intercourse with Storie on that night in August 1961.

DNA is after all just like any other piece of circumstantial evidence and must be weighed with any other evidence in a particular case. If someone's DNA profile is found it should be pertinent to ask, in the first instance, how did it get there and not "its there so the person must be guilty".

Yes, that question was asked. See above.

Hanratty's defence at the appeal in 2002 were not aware of the problems of LCN (albeit beyond contamination) and that the problems with it, at that time, had not been thoroughly examined by the wider scientific community.

I do not believe that that statement is accurate. I believe it is your opinion, not fact. I will only change my opinion if you can provide some evidence to support it.

Further, Caz's well worn tale of if Hanratty wasn't the rapist then what happened to the real rapist's DNA is also answered in the above problems with LCN. It is either there, as a part of the mixture, or on the main part of Ms Stories knicker's from which the fragment was cut by Dr Grant and later destroyed. Remember DNA tissue origin cannot be inferred by LCN.

Apart from semen heads. The semen on that fragment of the knickers was blood-typed in 1961, the possibility that it does not contain the rapists' semen is negligible.

Alphon, Hanratty, you, me and Tom, Dick and Harry could have been guilty of being the A6 murderer from a mixed LCN profile as a sign of absoulte guilt according to the FSS.

Again, I do not believe that statement is accurate. I believe it is your opinion, not fact.

As far as Alphon goes, no one will now ever know for sure whether he was the A6 murderer. Hanratty certainly wasn't if one is going to be truly fair with regard to empirical evidence and the presumption of innocence, coupled with a reasonable doubt as to guilt. Not at trial in 1962 or at appeal in 2002 has anybody proved, to me, anything of empirical worth to make Hanratty guilty of the A6 murder.

At last, you give your opinion. My opinion is diagmetrically opposed, I believe the LCN DNA evidence proves tha tthe eleven members of the jury were correct.

As for the Hanratty family wanting DNA tests, it is true they did. They believe James Hanratty to be innocent and were backed up by the finidngs of the CCRC.

No, the findings of the CCRC were that the conviction was safe.

It is only now with more hindsight that their stance is correct.

I believe that the CCRC findings were correct and the Hanratty family were wrong in their belief in James' innocence.

Those prepared to accept the view of the wider scientific community to LCN, arrived at over a good few years of research and consideration, will know all about its problems, that can be applied to any case involving LCN. Those who do not will always be plagued by putting blind faith in a system that they know very little about.

I'm glad to say I put my faith in my ability to interpret the results that I have seen and the arguments presented, rather than putting blind faith in the hollow words of a convicted rapist and murderer.

DNA in criminal cases, far from being the Gold Standard of evidence, is being seen more and more for what it really is. That is it is nothing more than just a piece in the jigsaw puzzle. It is just another forensic technique as fallible as all the others. Contrary to this though it seems, more and more, that the prosecuting authorities want to do less and less actual investigating and detective work and rely, more and more, on DNA evidence to gain a conviction. That should worry everybody.

Yes, it is another piece of the jigsaw puzzle, but a definite, logical, tangible and comprehendible piece. The piece of the picture that it reveals must be incorporated into the whole image, you can't deny it exists and throw it down the back of the sofa when 2/3rds of the image (VS and MG DNA profiles) fit and the final third has part of James Hanratty on it.

KR,
Vic.

[Tony]

The Jury.

Good morning all,

There has been a bit of discussion of late about the jury and how it returned its verdict.

It is usually accepted that the longer the jury is out the more uncertain it is and the likely verdict will be not guilty. A jury that comes back quickly with a verdict is usually a predictable one. That is there is overwhelming evidence of guilt or scant evidence.

I know Vic will point out the OJ Simpson trial when the evidence took a year and nobody knew which way the jury would go but it came back within the hour with a not guilty verdict.

The A6 jury was out for an enormous length of time. It appears the judge thought there would be a not guilty verdict and seemed hesitant to pass sentence and the betting in the halls were 20-1 against a conviction. I think almost everyone on here thinks it was the wrong verdict at the time.

We do not know what happened in that jury room and no jury member has ever said although nothing prevents them for voicing their opinion. But in a capital case the judge could only accept a unanimous verdict a majority verdict was not accepted.

There must have been considerable debate and discussion and there must have been doubt.

Twice the jury came back to see the judge: once to ask for guidance on reasonable doubt which suggests there was at least one doubter in there and secondly to ask for sandwiches.

On these two occasions that the jury returned two of its members smiled around at everyone in that courtroom. On the third return these two members came back in and remained with their heads bowed.

I wonder if they were getting fed up.

Tony.

[Graham]

Hi Tony,

good points re: the jury. I have a vague memory that a member of the A6 jury did make some kind of statement about it, years ago, but can't remember what it was or in what context.

I served on a jury in 1972, also in a murder case. The prosecution's case was so overwhelming, and the defence limited almost to pleading (non-existent) 'mitigating circumstance', that we on the jury reached a unanimous verdict in less than an hour. However, we felt that returning to the court with our verdict so soon would possibly be viewed in a dim light given the seriousness of the case, so we called for lunch first! (a very good lunch it was, too!)

One of the ladies on that jury was very upset about the case, especially the photographic evidence; the judge asked her if she was all right and she said she could carry on. Even though the defendant was guilty as hell, it's still somewhat awe-inspiring to consider that you are about to deprive a fellow human-being of his liberty, possibly for the next 20 years or more. How jurors must have felt when we still had capital punishment I really can't imagine.

I would agree with you that there must have been mega-serious debate and doubt in the A6 jury-room, after the longest murder-trial in English legal history. It would be incredibly interesting if an A6 jury-member ever did come forward with his reminiscences.

Cheers,

Graham

[Graham]

hi all. just making one of my occasional visits.

hi Graham



i would argue that point Graham, sure, Hanratty was convicted, and the legal team may accept that, but don't forget, a conviction in a court of law is not proof of guilt, no more than an aquittal is proof of innocence, as your own example about Tony Mancini showns

Hi Larue,

agreed, but as the number of guilty verdicts going to appeal is, statistically, very small, I'd say that by and large the courts get it right, usually.

Tony Mancini was got off by a combination of the brilliance of his brief, Norman Birkett, and his own not-inconsiderable acting skills. Apparently he could even produce real tears at the appropriate time.

Cheers,

Graham

[P.L.A]

Majority Verdicts

Hi Tony

Majority verdicts were introduced into the English courts by the 1967 Criminal Justice Act.

The first majority verdict was delivered in October 1967 at Brighton when Saleh Kassem was found guilty of stealing a handbag.

Regards

Peter.

[Victor]

Unless explicitly stated by one of those 11 jurors, I don't think that a huge amount can be absolutely guaranteed from the amount of time it took to deliberate about the huge amount of evidence presented.

Frank Gallagher's manipulation when he was a juror in Shameless would be an example of the other extreme to Tony's speculations.

KR,
Vic.

[larue]

hi all. just making one of my occasional visits.

hi Graham

but the fact is that he has been proven to be guilty by standards accepted by those who legally represented him. Can't really be plainer than that.

i would argue that point Graham, sure, Hanratty was convicted, and the legal team may accept that, but don't forget, a conviction in a court of law is not proof of guilt, no more than an aquittal is proof of innocence, as your own example about Tony Mancini showns

On the opposite side of the coin, Tony Mancini was found not guilty of the Brighton Trunk Murder (I've referred to this before), to the great surprise of everyone including himself, and years later did actually confess.

[larue]

There has been a bit of discussion of late about the jury and how it returned its verdict.

There must have been considerable debate and discussion and there must have been doubt.

Twice the jury came back to see the judge: once to ask for guidance on reasonable doubt which suggests there was at least one doubter in there and secondly to ask for sandwiches.

On these two occasions that the jury returned two of its members smiled around at everyone in that courtroom. On the third return these two members came back in and remained with their heads bowed.

I wonder if they were getting fed up.

hi Tony

i have wondered at this too. when one considers other [in]famous cases like Haigue the acid bath killer, and Heath the sadist, the juries delivered their verdict within about 15 minutes.
this suggests to me that the verdict had been decided before they even left the courtroom. taking out the time they took to retire from court, walk to the jury room and light up their fags, the actual deliberation time could easily have been single minutes.
9.5 hours for Hanrtty is a hell of a long time. it suggest to me, that the jury really did not know what to make of it all... especially as they had to aks the judge about what constituted reasonable doubt. [ as an aside, i think the judge, on hearing this, should have dismissed the jury, and declared a mis-trial, based on the concept that anyone who is not cognisant of what a doubt is has no place deciding a man's fate ]
swanwick had promised to 'overwhelming evidence' of hanratty's guilt. i reckon what he produced fell somewhat sort of that claim. no sarcasm intended [ yeah, right ]

so, what evidence did the jury actually have before them? precious little is my estimate, and i think that it came down to one simple question. who shall we believe, the nice innocent lady whose life has been ruined, or the little bastard that would rob you blind without a second thought? - no brainer

and as for those two who had the smiles wiped off their faces, were these the two that prevented unanimity? were they fed up? or had they just been browbeaten and leaned on to conform and toe the line, vote guilty and let's get the hell out of here? one wonders

[Tony]

hi Tony

i have wondered at this too. when one considers other [in]famous cases like Haigue the acid bath killer, and Heath the sadist, the juries delivered their verdict within about 15 minutes.
this suggests to me that the verdict had been decided before they even left the courtroom. taking out the time they took to retire from court, walk to the jury room and light up their fags, the actual deliberation time could easily have been single minutes.
9.5 hours for Hanrtty is a hell of a long time. it suggest to me, that the jury really did not know what to make of it all... especially as they had to aks the judge about what constituted reasonable doubt. [ as an aside, i think the judge, on hearing this, should have dismissed the jury, and declared a mis-trial, based on the concept that anyone who is not cognisant of what a doubt is has no place deciding a man's fate ]
swanwick had promised to 'overwhelming evidence' of hanratty's guilt. i reckon what he produced fell somewhat sort of that claim. no sarcasm intended [ yeah, right ]

so, what evidence did the jury actually have before them? precious little is my estimate, and i think that it came down to one simple question. who shall we believe, the nice innocent lady whose life has been ruined, or the little bastard that would rob you blind without a second thought? - no brainer

and as for those two who had the smiles wiped off their faces, were these the two that prevented unanimity? were they fed up? or had they just been browbeaten and leaned on to conform and toe the line, vote guilty and let's get the hell out of here? one wonders

Hello Larue,

It is indeed remarkable that the jury had to take 9 and a half hours to find him guilty. When they came back after quite some hours to ask the judge for the definition of reasonable doubt he told them to forget that; a man’s life was at stake and they must be absolutely certain that he had committed the murder or they had to find him not guilty. I wonder if there were dissenters, and bearing in mind the time they took, it would seem that there were, and how long after they all finally managed to agree did they go back into court. Was it a case of: “right that’s it 11-0 at last let’s get out to the judge before anybody changes their mind again”

The two jurors that were beaming around the court may have been two who were unsure. Later when they came back to ask for a snack these two were still apparently full of the joys of spring. Hours later and they were back to announce that this man they had been looking at for 31 days would have to die on their say so. No wonder their heads were bowed and they could not look towards the formerly accused and now condemned man.

A heavy weight for anyone to bear in my book and I for one would certainly not have liked to be on any jury that had the power to send a man to see the executioner.

Tony.

[larue]

I will contact Zoillus Press and ask them for a forwarding address and try to find out more. I am not at all confident of a reply. But who knows?

hi Steve

interesting to see you don't have much confidence in getting a reply. i have tried the same line of enquiry with a different publisher. all i can say is, "don't hold your breath while you are waiting"

but good luck anyway

[SteveS]

hi Steve

interesting to see you don't have much confidence in getting a reply. i have tried the same line of enquiry with a different publisher. all i can say is, "don't hold your breath while you are waiting"

but good luck anyway

Hi larue

Are you saying that you have tried to trace Leonard Miller through a different publisher?

If so, who was that publisher and was it for Shadows of Deadman's Hill?

Coming up for air, briefly
Thnx
Steve

[larue]

timings

hi Graham

in answer to your question on the "did the decendant's ever sue?" thread, my answer is that there certainly seems to be something awry with the thread time. one of my last posts seems to have been answered before i posted it!!!!

[larue]

Hi larue

Are you saying that you have tried to trace Leonard Miller through a different publisher?

If so, who was that publisher and was it for Shadows of Deadman's Hill?

Coming up for air, briefly
Thnx
Steve

hi Steve

no, it was a different book and author. can't remember the title offhand, but there was a chapter aboot the a6 murder, in which it was stated that VS had changed the description of her attacker, from brown eyes to blue, and that Basil Acott did'nt have much faith in her description anyway.

i wanted to learn where the author had gotten this information.

i emailed the publisher [twice] and on both occasions, i had a reply in less than 20 minutes, each time saying that a message will be sent to the author, aksing him if he cared to discuss the chapter with me. obviously, he don't