Announcement

**babybird67** · 11-24-2009, 04:45 PM

furthermore...

in relation to Steve's point that the semen stains left by MG on VS's knickers should have been presented to the jury as (presumably relevant) information, perhaps Steve, or anyone else, can enlighten me as to how this would have had an effect whatsoever on the deliberations of the jury regarding Hanratty's guilt or innocence?

Am i missing some suggestion that if she had semen from someone else on her knickers, Hanratty couldn't have raped her? If it was relevant to place the sexual activity of the rape victim in front of the jury, was it not equally relevant to place that of the accused's sexual activity in the same domain, or is this one of those misogynistic (my word of the day

) double standards that abound so abundantly within rape trials? What would the jury have made of a man who had sex several times a week with prostitutes, but then slept with a 16 year old friend of the family, and another girlfriend, before proposing to two other females as well? Surely this blatant sexual use of women would have cast perhaps a different light on Hanratty than his supporters would have us believe. If they think how he behaved was treating women in his life with respect, they are more naive than i thought.

How come pro-Hanratty's want to put VS and MG on trial for their morals, yet conveniently fail to apply the same standards of such to their golden boy?

Some of the arguments on this thread beggar belief, they really do.

I'm surprised nobody has yet suggested that because VS's skirt was a bit short and because she was obviously available to MG she must have been 'asking for it'. The arguments put forward so far don't stop far short of that do they?

**jimarilyn** · 11-24-2009, 05:04 PM

Originally posted by babybird67 View Post

I was referring to the month anniversary of the murder James, but you were quite right to correct that, as anniversary usually means a yearly event. Are you aware this is a recognised trait of murderers? To revisit the scenes of their crimes in this manner? Why did Hanratty take one of his girlfriends there on that momentous date? I'd be interested in your thoughts.

As I mentioned in my previous post, Hanratty and Gladys visited Bedford which is nine miles away from Maulden. Was the murder committed in Bedford or Maulden ?

I can think of several reasons why Hanratty would take Gladys for a drive to Bedford. He'd just acquired his Sunbeam Alpine two or three days earlier, the first car he'd ever owned, and this was his first real chance to show it off to his on/off girlfriend Gladys.
It was a Saturday, Gladys was not at work and it provided the ideal opportunity to take her for a spin in the country. So the first Saturday after buying his car was a "momentous date" was it ? Maybe to the mind of a one-off novellist like Lenny Miller (and his followers ) but not, I'd wager, to the minds of the vast majority of folk. Supposing that that Saturday had been the 22nd and not the 23rd of September what then ? Using his own unfathomable logic, Miller would probably claim that that too was a "momentous date", it would concide with the anniversary of the 9.30pm ('ish) abduction of Gregsten and Storie on the evening of August 22nd.

Monthly anniversaries ?? What on earth next, weekly ones or perhaps even daily ones ??

**RonIpstone** · 11-25-2009, 01:54 AM

One point which has never really been satisfactorily resolved to my satisfaction concerns James Hanratty's driving skills or lack of them.

Clearly the murderer was not a proficient driver according to Valerie Storie's account of the early hours of 23rd of August and the witnesses in London later that day.

JH had form for car theft, and according to Woffinden (page p 86) had 'learned' to drive between February 1957 and 3 July 1957. He does seem to have been unsuccessful in his car thieving as is evidenced by the fact that he was caught in July 1957 and again in March 1958. A car thief who can drive properly and in a manner which does not draw attention to himself is more likely to evade capture than one who cannot.

We also know that within hours of taking his hire car in Ireland he had bent it. Likewise we know that in the early days of his ownership of his new Alpine it also had suffered body damage. It is a matter of debate as to whether the damage was sustained before or after JH took delivery.

As against the above pointers to the effect that JH was useless behind the wheel, we have statements quoted in earlier posts on this forum that his younger brother, Michael, had said that JH was a good driver and had in fact taught Michael to drive. But if this is true one has to ask when and in which vehicle this driving tuition took place? Does anyone know the answer to that question?

**babybird67** · 11-25-2009, 11:28 AM

Warning!!!! Longest Post In The Universe>>>feel Free To Skip!

Do you know I was trying to go to sleep tonight and I just couldn�t. A situation on here has been bugging me for some time and I have just kept quiet about it for the sake of peace, but I no longer can, because inside me it has not engendered peace, and will not until I have dealt with it. It was triggered again recently by one post I read on here, which perhaps initially appeared fairly innocuous of itself, but it kept bugging me�troubling me�the troubling turned to riling and here I am in, in full throttle, so if I offend anyone with this post I apologise, but nothing puts more fire in my belly than injustice and hypocrisy and I can�t hold myself back any longer. Besides I have been offended enough both by personal things said to me, and by the inexplicable treatment of Valerie Storie on this forum.

Thus let my rant commence�skip if you have no interest. I warn you now, it�s massive and I am thinking of hawking out the film rights to it later. You�ve been warned - I acknowledge it is long. Don�t therefore read it and then complain I wrote too much�I�m telling you already I have done that. It does what it says on the tin. Think of it as a stream of consciousness and engage with it if you wish, ignore it if you wish. The only person I really would like to read and take note of what I say is Limehouse, for reasons that will become obvious as my rant progresses.

Limehouse�when I first joined this thread, you welcomed me; I thanked you and praised your postings. I was perfectly polite to everyone on here. Even when Reg first attacked me I responded not in kind but by reminding him that his comments weren�t fair, either to me or to others he needlessly and unjustifiably attacked and tried to scare away.

Anyway, there then followed a pernicious verbal onslaught on me by a pair of Hanrattyites, down to lifting personal information from my profile and using that to make unwarranted remarks about my integrity, after which this very same poster who resorted to this debating technique told me my own remarks pertaining to the A6 case were apparently low! This bullying behaviour was noticed and remarked upon by several people; I was ignorant, I was ill-informed etc (and those were the nicest remarks!)�all bullying remarks meant to dissuade me from contributing to the board. I went into chat and confessed to a friend I was thinking of taking a break from it all, it was too upsetting, and I didn�t need the stress. But the more I thought about it, the more I thought�that�s just what bullies want. They thrive on intimidation. They thrive on throwing their weight around, undermining their challengers with insults and frightening people into being silent; as I said already, nothing puts fire in my belly faster or deeper than injustice, so I grew a thicker skin and decided I would play them at their own game.

Comments they made to me such as my qualifications were worthless, that I was sexually unattractive to them (as if I care?) but their brother fancied me because he likes �hard nosed women��all these misogynistic, nasty, mean, pathetic and untrue little comments to a fellow female poster, Limehouse, you allowed to pass uncommented upon. When I fought back, and told them actually, I wasn�t worthless, and who were they to tell me I was�you saw fit to comment then, didn�t you, that I was smug and arrogant�for defending myself!

Since then there have been the little digs haven�t there; there have been the remarks reprimanding me about getting facts wrong where I did not; when I pointed out Valerie was being called an evil liar, you responded, �nobody has said that.� I went and got the quotation where Reg said exactly that just for you, to prove to you what was being said, and instead of apologising to me, and condemning those comments, even though I asked you directly what you thought of them, you passed it by again. I offered you the prime chance to put on record that you condemned Reg�s comments regarding Valerie Storie, but you were too busy choosing to comment on my alleged arrogance to bother defending a rape victim against such disgraceful slurs; your silence about her, and your criticism of me when you could see very well I was being bullied by two other posters, said quite loudly to me: It�s ok to bully and rape women, but if women fight back they are �arrogant� or �liars�; and don�t say you never said it; You allowed it to be said without condemning it for the absolute atrocity it is to accuse any innocent rape victim such as Valerie of deliberately falsifying her evidence, even when I directly pointed it out to you, because you had denied even having seen it, and asked you, invited you, to comment, expecting any right minded person, especially a woman, to condemn unjustified, unwarranted libel and malicious downright nasty remarks against a victim of rape, and you said�absolutely nothing.

Of course that was your choice. I know its difficult to stand up to bullies, and that sometimes people duck out of confrontation because it is stressful, and I understand if for those reasons you chose to let Reg bully and intimidate me along with his playmate, without comment, but when I fought back you certainly didn�t feel bad saying something derogatory to me did you? Standing behind what they were doing and casting me in the role as having done something wrong, whilst standing at the sidelines and watching two bullies take turns to attack my character, my integrity and my sexuality, none of which had anything to do with the A6 debate in the first place. THAT is what has been troubling me for so long�and which I have decided to speak out about�something�s been festering, and now hopefully I have expressed it I can put it aside and let go. Until this moment, I could not. It wasn�t right, and it didn�t sit right with me. And I am nothing if not determined to say and stand up for what I think is right, and I don�t care who disagrees with me. If you respect me, I will respect you; I had not disrespected you in the slightest, but you chose to comment about the manner in which I was defending myself from bullies negatively, whilst leaving the original offences against me unchecked, and therefore uncondemned. My arrogance obviously offended you a good deal more than a couple of men who think they own cyberspace and malign any woman strong enough to stand up to them. That�s fine. Now I am expressing what offended me about your comments, freely, as you did yours.

What�s that poem that goes something along the lines of�they came for the gypsies and I said nothing�you get the gist. I hope and pray you aren�t one day raped, and people sitting on an internet message board in their Ivory Towers impenetrable to truth, or even to decency, pass judgement on your ability to honestly identify your attacker�don�t you think such a stance would be deeply, deeply arrogant? Not to mention also deeply, deeply offensive? You need to connect with what happened here. It�s not a story. This didn�t happen in a novel. Valerie, crippled Valerie, is still alive. How dare you think you have any right whatsoever to sit in judgement upon her and claim to know who attacked her better than she does? Reg said the very same thing to me in an extremely offensive post, which again passed uncommented by you�double standards of tolerance, you have, don�t you. He said that neither me nor Miss Storie had any idea who attacked her�still, he, being the self proclaimed expert on the case that he is states such a thing without an iota of arrogance doesn�t he. And notably, pertinently, escaped any comment from you on his arrogance in doing so.

This is the post you made that really made my blood boil, Limehouse. You said, and I have emphasised the bit which absolutely appals me,

Unlike Woffinden and Foot, I was not waiting for the DNA results. In fact, I didn't even know what the results were until long after they were published.
The doubts I had and still have about the murder could not be changed by those results, because, as I said before, the other evidence seems so contrived (with the exception of VS's testimony. I fully believe she believed she had identified her killer).

You believe she thought she got the right man, but you actually don�t think she did. You know better than Valerie who attacked her, right, because let�s face it, being there at the time, being the person being forced into the back of the car to be raped next to the body of your lover seeping with blood, being then forced to struggle to remove that body from the car and then being shot and left to die, that person might only believe they had identified the person responsible, but you know better. And I am the arrogant one? You put the cause of women�s rights back decades; how dare you presume to know better than a victim of a rape who raped her? Then you speak of the DNA evidence as if it is irrelevant�after all, all the other evidence which supports both Valerie and the DNA evidence can easily be explained away by a convoluted two generational conspiracy theory; I think the hoops you need to jump through to exonerate this man would require the Big Top you perform these fantastic tricks in(and I am using the word �fantastic� in the sense of unbelievable, not in the sense of wonderful, by the way�and believe me I have chosen a circus metaphor most deliberately) to cover the entire Atlantic Ocean�and then some.

Let�s try and humanise it for you a little more, take it from the realms of an intellectual exercise for all you campaigners so consumed with the drive for justice, of which more later, and explain it to you in perhaps terms you might have a chance of connecting with. The intellect is nothing divorced from the emotional intelligence required to enchance it; debates of conspiracy theories and fragments of knickers divorce the subject from what really matters�that there is a survivor of an horrific crime here, to be thought of; sorry to be the uncomfortable reminder of the HUMAN aspect of these perpetually ridiculous arguments about framings and plots to split up or drive together the same couple, in which the victim, for whom the concept of a trial exists, let�s remember that shall we, for once, to provide for her justice and closure, becomes a mere intellectual sideline to be referenced, if at all, as someone either too incompetent or too dishonest to identify her attacker with accuracy; somebody has to remind you of this salient yet oft ignored fact.

Let�s have a hypothetical; let�s take Valerie out of the equation then we don�t have to accuse her of being the devil incarnate with loose morals who probably deserved what was coming to her, do we.

Let�s say, for argument�s sake, you have a daughter. One night you get a call from the Police�come to the hospital�your daughter has been attacked. Oh my God�you rush down there to find her peppered with bullets, the doctors give her a fifty -fifty chance of surviving. �It was worse for her boyfriend,� the doctor consoles you gently. �He was shot and killed. At least she�s alive.� Through your mind runs the thought��Thank God he didn�t kill her. Please let her survive, and please let their be enough evidence to catch and convict the bastard that did this to her.�

Your daughter begins to recover. She recalls what she can about the incident. Some notes about what she recalled when she was found apparently dying at the scene have gone missing. Confusion arises. Someone tells her, let�s make sure we have the details correct, now you are feeling a little better; they go through the description with her. �Wait a minute, why do you have down brown eyes? I never said that.�

�No, we have no record of you saying so, but the man who found you passed on these details and said you told him brown eyes.�

�He�s mistaken. I tried to spell out blue eyes with stones in case I died before anyone found me. In fact his eyes were very distinctive�big blue ones, like saucers.�

The Police check their notes. �Ah there must have been some confusion, which isn�t surprising considering you almost died at the scene. The same man told us your name was Mary, which it obviously isn�t, so the information he passed on as coming from you can�t be completely relied upon. Don�t worry. We�ll amend the description. That should help us find the man we are looking for. Can you help us do an identikit? And a parade? We actually have a few other witnesses who have come forward saying they saw a man in the car the morning of the attack, so we will see what comes of that.�

You check a few days later how the investigation is going: we have three positive identifications of the same man either at the scene as identified by your daughter, the only living witness, or later in the car�the other two witnesses picked out the same man independently of each other, so that�s good. We�ve also found some cartridges which match the gun that shot your daughter. Good news is, we were able to link the same man your daughter identified with the room in which they were found�he stayed there the night before the murder. Not only that, we recovered the weapon too, in a place he told both a friend, and us, that he uses to discard things he no longer wants. We showed him the handkerchief that we found wrapped round the gun, and he told us that was his too. All in all, the jigsaw is coming together and it is a very compelling case.�

�Do you think we will get a conviction?�

�Well, it�s difficult in rape cases, because it is often only one person�s word against another, that�s the nature of the crime, especially as the other potential witness was shot dead. There�s a lot of misogyny around as well, cross examination of the victim�s sex life and things like that, suggesting she asked for it, that sort of thing. Probably why as few as 5% of cases that come to court ever see a conviction�think about that figure�it�s not statistically likely that women are lying about who raped them in 95% of cases and telling the truth only in 5%. And that�s of course only taking into account those rapes reported and prosecuted; the vast majority of such crimes don�t even get that far.

But your daughter�s an honest girl isn�t she, and this man already has form, although not for rape. I don�t see why any right thinking person would be able to ignore all the evidence we have, and take his word for his innocence against her word that it was him that raped her.�

�well, her boyfriend was married, will that make a difference?�

�Well, maybe the defence might try to make it relevant by besmirching her character, but that�s their job. It�s up to the jury to decide who they believe at the end of the day. I don�t see why having an affair with a married man has any bearing on the guilt or innocence of the accused. But things get twisted, unfortunately, that�s the way it is.�

�Does he have an alibi?�

�Yes�he swears he was in Liverpool but is being cagey about the details. We haven�t found anything yet to corroborate his alibi.�

You are worried. Worried about your daughter�s physical health; you�ve just found out she wont ever walk again. She wont be able to have children, or run, or dance in the rain, or walk down the aisle to marry�her psychological health�people acting for the defence are going to call her a liar, immoral, nasty, asking for it; her emotional health�she lost her lover that night too, he whose arms should be around her consoling her now in her worst living nightmare. Looking at the evidence you do not see how this man could possibly be innocent. But wait�he has changed his story. He admits he was lying about being in Liverpool. Now he alleges he was in Rhyl. No matter, your daughter places him firmly in the car that night; she knows who attacked her. Luckily there are those other two witnesses who can support her identification. That should be more convincing to any right minded person since now it isn�t just his word against hers, but his word against hers and two independent witnesses connecting him with the car., against the added backdrop of his admission that his first alibi was a pack of lies�that surely can�t reflect well on him? Who now could take anything he says at face value?

No evidence is forthcoming to support the second alibi either. �Won�t the jury question why he didn�t tell the truth in the first place?� you ask the Police.

�I would imagine so. People on trial for their lives don�t usually give false alibis if they have a genuine one lying around somewhere; why offer a story you KNOW cannot be corroborated rather than one you aren�t sure about but KNOW to be true? That would be a terrible own goal on the part of the defendant, would it not?�

�Yes, and along with all the other evidence.�

�Precisely�we are not looking at one or two facts alone, but a picture, a jigsaw of information built up, standing the scrutiny of examination, objective examination by a jury. �Don�t worry, they tell you. There�s enough evidence here to convict.

Just before the case comes to trial, a scientific breakthrough is achieved. There�s a new test developed. It can look at DNA, even small amounts, and identify individuals. This test could scientifically, objectively, corroborate your daughter�s account�it would take the �one word against another word� out of the equation altogether. It would be scientific inarguable proof that the person your daughter identified had sex with her that night�of course it couldn�t prove rape, that would still have to be argued and no doubt defence would still try to argue the sex took place with consent, but at least the issue of WHO had had sex with her could be resolved.

The tests are carried out. The tests conclusively show that the man your daughter identified had sex with her that night. Of course you don�t understand how the semen stains show this, something to do with �distribution�, but even his defence have had to concede that indeed this is what this shows. They show the only other person who had sex with her was her boyfriend. This means that scientific evidence now also backs up your daughter�s claims. Hallelujah! She is vindicated! Say what they might, those defence lawyers, slander her name, suggest she is lying all they might, that sort of evidence cannot be gainsayed�if anyone else was responsible, the sample would have shown evidence of another profile. But there isn�t one.

You sleep that night safe in the comfort that soon your daughter will be able to begin to put the shattered pieces of her life together again; how do you get over witnessing your lover being shot point blank in the head? How do you get over being raped at gunpoint right night to his dripping body? How do you get over having to drag his lifeless form from the car, after begging the assailant to let you go for help, and being shot while you lay there, stunned, raped, crippled, left for dead?

Perhaps these are moot points�perhaps you never do. But at least the system of Justice we have in this country brings closure in some respects. Draws a line. Lets the healing process have a chance to begin.

Tomorrow, the trial, is the beginning of the end. Thank God.

That night you have a nightmare. The trial is in full swing. Some smart-arse lawyer is trying to make a name for himself at the expense of your daughter. Every point that is put to him he tries to destroy, but instead of using logic and common sense and evidence, your surreal nightmare is a world where myth is used by the lazy as fact, where your daughter stands bewildered in the dock, holding out her hands for you to help her, while the defendant, that Diablo, towers over her on a white alabaster pillar, a monument to martyrdom, mocking and sneering and saying, hahaha, all I had to do was convince the gullible few I didn�t do it�they are doing my work for me�I sent them off as loyal disciples to clear my name, even though my name is written all over this crime�so what if they drag your daughter through the mud, day in, day out, week in, week out, month in, month out, year in, year out, decade in, decade out�forever more! His laugh is diabolical, but you knew it would be; he murdered your daughter�s lover and raped and crippled her.

�No�that�s not just, that she would have to relive what you did to her every day, for eternity! She�ll never be allowed to heal!�

You start to put the evidence yourself to the jury;

The cartridge cases that matched the murder weapon were found in his room!

HAHA someone could have �planted� them there.

Jury: is there any evidence for that?

HAHA: no but who cares? What�s possible must be considered probable; truth must be perverted; justice evaded.

What about the murder weapon? It was found where he said he discarded things!
HAHA someone could have planted it there.

Jury: is there any evidence for that?

HAHA: no but who cares? What�s possible must be considered probable if it exonerates me and condemns the victim.

What about him identifying his handkerchief as being around the murder weapon when it was found?

HAHA: someone could have planted it there.

Jury: is there any evidence for this?

HAHA: no but what is possible is to be considered probable if it exonerates me.

What about the fact that he said he was in Liverpool?

HAHA: I only lied because I was scared there was no evidence I actually was where I am now saying I was�it didn�t bother me to originally tell everyone I was somewhere there could not possibly be any proof that I was�especially if you now believe where I say I really was.

Jury: is there any evidence for him being in either of those places?

HAHA: no but I said I was and I wouldn�t lie�except for the first time when I did lie, but only because I was scared�and all the other times I have lied when I have been staying in hotels under false names and addresses and robbing people and stuff like that�but listen to my disciples, I am �open and honest��it�s that evil rape victim who just wants to send me down because she doesn�t like the colour of my hair�it�s all made up�I�m innocent�my mum said so so it must be true!

What about the identifications? My daughter says he raped her�why would she lie?

HAHA: well it was dark and I told her not to look at me so she couldn�t have got a good look. Besides, she told everyone I had brown eyes at first.

No she did not! That was not her evidence, someone misheard her and now it has become a myth and you are using it to imply my daughter is lying.

HAHA: yes she must be, because I am innocent; I am a martyr to justice and my disciples will slander any young girl�s name on my behalf�I am such a worthy candidate for this. I am the new Messiah and will lead crusades in the name of �Justice� and �Truth� for all eternity�not even objective scientific proof can save your daughter now!

Suddenly you remember the DNA evidence. That�s it. This Diablo has cooked his own goose by reminding you! Your daughter will be exonerated! Nobody could have all those bits of puzzle and then look at the science and decide your daughter must still be either lying or mistaken!

Look, jury, at these results. The other main suspect now is shown as innocent; both my daughter�s side and the defendant�s side, even the defendant�s family, agree it could not have been this other man. This is conclusive proof this man slept with my daughter. His sperm is on it. His profile is on it. Not only that but the same profile and only that profile is on the handkerchief as well. If somebody had planted that gun with that handkerchief, the fact that these tests can detect as small as a couple of cells would have picked it up. If anybody else had raped and shot my daughter that night, there is no way he could have erased his DNA fingerprint from those knickers. That�s it. Proof, finally, that my daughter is telling the truth. That man, there, raped her; she said he did. I believe her.

You sit down, emotionally exhausted�your daughter is crying, trying to reach you, but she can�t. You look at Diablo with satisfaction that justice will be done. One by one each jury member stands up to deliver their verdict:

Juror one: the gun could have been planted. There is no evidence that it was. There is evidence from the defendants own admission that the place in which it was found was exactly where he chose to get rid of things. I vote not guilty. A possibility becomes a plausibility when common sense and right thinking are thrown out of the window. He turns, tears a strip of skin from your daughter�s injured body, and throws it out of the window.

Juror two stands: the handkerchief found with the gun could have been planted. Yes it has one DNA profile on it, evidence that one person and one person alone handled it; however, the possibility of contamination is theoretically posited�contamination because it was handled by many at the trial and the DNA scientists and was jumbled with other evidence, allegedly, in a box. That no other profile was found logically argues against this theoretically possibility being remotely plausible; but I vote not guilty. A possibility becomes a plausibility when logic and deduction are thrown out of the window. He also turns, strips flesh from your daughter, and throws it out of the window.

Juror three stands: the cartridge cases from the murder weapon were found in a room occupied by the defendant the night before the murder. We know he stayed there and was assigned that room because he signed the hotel register and his room number was recorded alongside his entry and on his bill. This is evidence further linking him to the gun. I vote not guilty. Another suspect stayed at the same hotel the next night. A known liar changed his testimony when he thought it expedient to state that this was the man who in actual fact stayed in the room where the cartridges were. The defence says this second man was the one who stayed in the room, not the defendant: evidence which argues against this can be found in the independent hotel register, the defendant�s bill, the testimony of hotel staff, and the testimony of the �liar� before he knew the Police suspected the second man. Convoluting all this evidence means it is possible the defendant was not the only person to use that room; there is no evidence whatsoever that this second man ever went into the room with the cartridges. But it�s a possibility for them to have been planted. A possibility becomes a plausibility when all actual evidence (hotel registers) is discarded in favour of complex unsupported conspiracy theories and the religious faithful would rather believe anything other than that their sacred martyr may actually have been lying after all - when objectivity is thrown out of the window and replaced by blind acceptance. He turns, strips your daughter�s flesh, and throws it out of the window.

Your daughter all the while is being tortured all over again. Every baseless supposition, unsupported by the slightest evidence whatsoever, every slight on her character and her name, every questioning of her motives, casts her into a shadowy world of self doubt, torment, horror, the unrelenting horror not only of being attacked as she originally was, but of seeing her attacker�s disciples not turn on him and condemn him for what he did to her, but applaud him, state he is �honest and open� when even he admits that his entire life has been lived to exactly opposing principles, yet she, who has hurt no-one, stolen nothing, raped no-one, murdered no-one�she is the Whore of Babylon�she is the one who would lie, twist, fabricate, implicate without just cause; what surreal nightmare is this, when the innocent are condemned without trial and the guilty, even the guilty convicted and sentenced, are exonerated, lauded, martyred�followers glibly talk of justice and truth, in a fantastical Gilliam universe where monsters wear smiles and those guiltless and guileless are persecuted for all eternity, like the modern Prometheus, awaking each day anew to the resumption of exactly the same torments, terrors, torture.

All the jurors stand and pass judgement�all exonerate that man�all say quite plainly that they do not have any concrete evidence to back up their judgement, but they all quite sure that possibilities can easily become plausibilities once the awkward thorns of common sense, right thinking, logic, science and justice are all disposed of expediently.

Not guilty�the verdict rings through the courtroom�the pierce of its blade shoots vehemently from the eyes of every person there into the heart of your daughter�she stood and identified the man who raped her; two others identified the same man in the getaway car; he had connections with the gun, the handkerchief around the gun, empty cartridge cases that matched the gun, no alibi�his DNA matched the handkerchief�his DNA belied his golden tongue, the slithery golden tongued assertion��I am inno..ssssent�� Like a serpent he spoke, and his poison crept into the minds of those who heard him speak and did not believe he could lie�did not believe he could lie, even when he stood before them and told them he was a liar, they still told him he was not; no, it was that girl who was the liar�she who was not on trial�she was the liar�he was an icon, a saint, a god.

In the throes of her agony, your daughter cries out poignantly to all, �This is wrong�I know it was him�I was there! It was his eyes that looked at me as he ordered me into the back of the car. His voice that told me I couldn�t get a doctor for my boyfriend to try to save him. I know. I am the voice of truth; I am the witness to the truth; I am the one to believe, for I was there, and I saw him.�

Diablo turns to her to retort�behind him are his minions, congratulating themselves that today they stood up for truth and justice and have done something that will go down in history as being good and great.

She has to look him again in those piercing blue eyes�cold, icy, staring�yet something happens�he is changing�his eyes, they are blurring, his hair, elongating�his form, metamorphosing�a tail, protruding from his rear and little spiky horns erupting gleefully from his head as his true nature is freed by those who sought to exonerate him�but his face�what is it�who is it?

In horror, your daughter sees your face on the devil as you become the incarnation of Beelzebub himself. She begins to realise, it is not YOUR nightmare, but HER nightmare, that when she seeks to be heard, that when as a victim of crime she turns to her society for justice, for everything that is good and true and fair to be upheld, it is not only society, but her fellow women themselves who turn to her, macabre in the flickering darkness of the light polluted by the blackening blast of all that is unjust, and say to her, patronisingly,

�come come now, dear�we all believe you think you know who raped you; we all believe you �believe� you have the right man. Evidence supports you; logic supports you; common sense supports you, and,� and she smirks, �now even science supports you�but we do not support you. Allow us to presume we know better than you. Allow us to presume to send this stark message to every child or woman raped from now until eternity�yes I raped you; yes my DNA is there as proof that I raped you; yes every shred of evidence, real hard evidence, uncovered in the investigation proves that I raped you�supported by all this, let every woman know, should she presume to seek justice and redress for her plight, it shall be cast out, as truth is cast from Hell, as liars are cast from Heaven, as compassion is cast from my heart. Let history record that I am innocent, though I be guilty; and that you be guilty, though you be innocent. Let this perversity and injustice prevail, as stark warning, that no rape victim knows better who raped her than she shall be told by those who weren�t there. Let her know that we can pretend we uphold what is right and good, by patronising her by saying, there, there dearie, I am sure you think you know who attacked you; allow me to presume to correct you from the exalted position of my arrogant ignorance. We can sit by and watch men malign her in the �courtroom� of popular opinion, and malign those who come to defend her as well; when they call her liar, will we defend her? No. When they call her harlot, will we defend her? No. When they call her a criminal for deliberately falsifying her testimony, will we speak out and gainsay them, for women everywhere, for justice, to do what is right and good and what all honourable citizens should strive to do? No. We�ll sit by and watch it happen�we�ll sit and sneer at people who come to take up her cause. Then we can say, I didn�t say that. The hollow echo of this evasion of responsibility reverberates around the courtroom�and around the desolate chambers of every human victim�s heart.

�No. You didn�t say it.� Your perplexed daughter replies. �But you didn�t challenge it either. And now I am condemned, if not by your words, then by your silence.�

She turns away, condemned now to relive that night in eternity, cast as the villain, and not as the victim, in a bizarre and surreal role reversal of the most astounding order.

Then remember the real courtroom eschewed this inversion, perversion, of justice; but in continually questioning it, and repeating questions which have been logically, evidentially, answered, a million times over, you sit Prosecution, Judge and Jury, in the courtroom of public opinion, elevating it as superior to the Justice of the Courts, and condemn not the perpetrator, but the victim of this crime, over and over and over again. What gives you the right? And what gives you the right to pretend to do so in the name of all that is just, right and true? If that is justice, right and truth, then give me lies and inequity any day.

Please, for God�s sake, for once, learn something from this set of circumstances; remember the woman you condemn either by accusation or tacit approval of accusations against her by others which you make from the cowardly occupation of a comfy and uncontroversial silence, is alive, and still living the horror of what this man did to her�.day in, day out, week in, week out, month in, month out�ad infinitum. Don�t call me arrogant for standing tall against people who tried to intimidate me away from defending her as is my right. If you want to discuss what is arrogant, start by asking yourself why you should presume to tell the victim of a crime how you could possibly know better than she who perpetrated the attack on her. Then, turn your attack to those others who accuse her not just of being mistaken, but of being deliberately false about it as well; they are better targets for your accusations of arrogance than I will ever be. I haven�t put myself above the law; I haven�t presumed I know more than the jury who heard and evaluated all of the evidence, or of the law Lords who did the same at Court of Appeal, and I certainly have not arrogantly assumed, as have you, Limehouse, and Reg, that I could possibly have a better knowledge of who attacked the very victim of and witness to the crimes themselves.

I�ve been up all night writing this. Why? Do I like hearing the sound of my own voice? Not particularly, but I�m comfortable listening to it when I know I have something important to say. Since I joined this thread, even before I started posting to it, I detested the bullying. And the more I read, the more I couldn�t believe what I was reading, or the implied motivations in the expressions I found myself encountering. I knew very well when I put my head above the parapet that the very same people would begin to direct their nastiness at me�and it very nearly succeeded in scaring me off. But as I think I said to them, I made of sterner stuff�perhaps not physically, but certainly intellectually and emotionally and where there is injustice, I will stand on the highest mountain top (there�s still a place for Ally as well) and shout it out as loud as I can.

I�ve done this because what I read here is just plain wrong; calling the victim of rape a liar, or standing by and winking at those who do so in tacit approval, is just plain wrong; calling injustice and unfounded slander and libel fair and the justice achieved through a court of law unfair is just plain wrong. Nobody doubts that there are miscarriages of justice; but that there are some, does not mean that every criminal who pleads his innocence has been convicted unfairly. Even when as in this case the original trial was unfair does not mean necessarily that the defendant was convicted unfairly. That is what the recourse to the Courts of Appeal is for. Steve said today that people are presumed innocent until they are proven guilty; that is what courts are for. The courts found Hanratty guilty; they upheld the conviction at original appeal; they upheld the conviction at later appeal; the conviction was further deemed safe by inarguable DNA evidence which proved beyond any reasonable doubt that Hanratty had been convicted correctly. To argue otherwise is to argue a scenario where a person is not only presumed innocent before a conviction, but also after it, after its unsuccessful appeal/s, and after even further scientific evidence confirming the justice of that conviction is made available�where do you stop? Where do you finally draw the line and have the courage to change your mind, in accordance with the extant evidence, and finally concede that the victim was right, and YOU, who were not there, are just plain wrong and what�s more should have the grace and humility to concede that. Simple fact.

Changing your mind is not a weakness; it is a profound strength which only a very few people I have met have demonstrated they have. People are scared of admitting they may have been wrong. They shore up their beliefs, even as evidence washes away at the shoreline, eroding them day by day. People who cannot change their minds deprive themselves of one of the most rewarding pleasures of being a sentient human being�and that is the pleasure that comes from the capacity to learn. I was once mocked for saying something different at one point on a thread (not here on Casebook) to that which I had said earlier in the thread; I respectfully pointed out this was not a sign of inconsistency, but a sign of growth, since information I had received and, what�s more, absorbed, since the commencement of that subject had enlightened me and I had changed my mind. I told that person that in attacking me, they were attacking the very pursuit of learning, and the purpose of posting on the boards in the first place; we all know what we know�why post it elsewhere if not to share that, to partake in a community where everyone can contribute and hopefully benefit from everyone else�s contributions, and learn something for once!

I say the above in hope, as I am ever the optimist; the trouble is, the realist in me is rearing her head and shaking it woefully, advising me not to expect miracles, as those are only for believers, for holders of faith...yet in one respect I am such. I do have an optimism that most people do want to learn, do want the truth, do want to grow and expand not only their knowledge but their experience and their emotional intelligence as much as their intelligence quotient; as I have always felt, having a high IQ without the emotional understanding to temper it renders it practically useless.

I�m not perfect. I do wrong. I say mean things sometimes in the heat of the moment (ask Vic he was on the receiving end not long ago). I have apologised though where I know I have let myself and others down when I have engaged in that behaviour and I would never stand by and watch someone be bullied and what�s more, criticise that person for the way they coped with the bullying, whilst leaving the bullies to continue unchecked. If you doubt that what I experienced was bullying, ask yourself why Reg felt the need to apologise in private to his fellow Hanratty-ites for his behaviour toward me, yet steadfastly refused to do the right thing, the courteous thing, by being man enough to apologise to the person he had bullied, me. He didnt even have to do it in public...a pm would have done the trick, but no, he didnt have the strength to admit he was wrong. He was ashamed all right�but he couldn�t openly admit he was wrong. It was his loss, truly, for he did not learn from it; he couldn�t grow, for how can you even begin to grow where you cannot not admit that growth is needed? The first thing is to acknowledge what is the right thing to do; the second thing is to try to have the courage to do it.

Anyway, that�s it; I�ve found a resolution for what happened to me when I arrived on this thread that I couldn�t attain by suppressing my truthful experience of it. I was once asked why I stick around on this thread, and accused of wanting Hanratty tried and hanged all over again, despite me saying quite clearly I was against the death penalty in the first place; I have an answer now. I stay around on this thread because somebody has to stay and point out where victims are slandered and convicts beatified, something has gone seriously wrong in the morals and logic of things. I�m not afraid to do so, and I�ve noticed others aren�t either. But that�s my motivation for staying. The fire in the belly ignites wherever I perceive injustice and/or hypocrisy. I�ll be staying here to ensure those two particular aspects are challenged whenever they appear.

Limehouse, I bear no ill will to you. You stood with your friends. I understand that. What you did and continue to do by not condemning the idea that any one of us on here has more of a right to claim to know who the identity of the man in the car with Valerie that night is wrong; it is presumptious and arrogant, and I would say that to anybody who set themselves as better placed than she was to identify her attacker. What you did to me hurt me more than the things Reg and his followers were saying, because you are a woman and I had praised your postings when I joined the thread in good faith; you could see unjustified personal remarks were being made to me, but instead of offering your support, and instead even of walking by silently, you chose to criticise me for the way I dealt with it at the time, whilst not saying a word to those offering me a string of unwarranted abuse. Those who really know me saw, without me saying a word, what it was doing to me�before I grew a thicker skin. Hopefully you will learn from my speaking out about my experience. If anything this diatribe has been cathartic for me, and I needed to do it, but I don�t bear you any ill will, and that is the end of the matter as far as I am concerned.

I thought about delivering this as a private message, but for two reasons decided against that; the first being, your accusations of arrogance towards me and lack of accusations of arrogance and bullying to those attacking me, all occurred in the public arena of this thread�this a belated right to reply to that and a reminder to others that such behaviour isn't particularly pleasant; and secondly, hopefully my metaphor of the case and the implications for victims everywhere, especially the victims of rape, might cause even one pro-Hanrattyite to question why they continue to support as innocent a man for whom there is not one shred of objective evidence justifying such a conclusion, because in doing so they continually condemn Valerie Storie as at best unreliable, and at worst, deceitful, when all the evidence demonstrates quite clearly that she was neither, and they continually arrogate themselves as better placed to identify the man who attacked than she herself was. In doing this they perpetuate the lack of closure for her; they perpetuate the crime into eternity.

There is a time for asking questions; there is a time for seeking clarification; there is a time for accepting that the answers you are getting back are true, even if they fail to accord with your preconceptions of what the truth actually is. To fail to listen is to fail to learn, and to fail to learn anything from this tragedy, even over a period of over forty years of relentlessly circular questioning, is perhaps the biggest tragedy of it all.

**Andrew** · 11-25-2009, 12:30 PM

The Jury is Independant

Dear All
The Court treats all witnesses as equal.
It is a basic principle of law that no one knows what the jury are thinking (a lawyer from Mishcon de Raya* told me that). You might assume that a jury have sympathy toward a victim, but no one can be certain. Some might regard Hanratty as a victim.
For the purposes of this blog I see myself as a juror on the A6 trial in 2009. Exactly to whom I give sympathy and credence is my choice.

*Mishcon�s have the Lord Lucan account - perhaps we could start a new thread.
Regards
Andrew

**RonIpstone** · 11-25-2009, 12:47 PM

A bit over the top babybird67.

No sensible person has ever doubted that Miss Storie was raped or that she gave her evidence honestly.

It was legitimate to question whether Hanratty had a fair chance in the identification process. Was he the only one with obviously dyed hair? Was he the only one with a London accent etc.? These questions cease to have any relevance with the discovery of the DNA evidence which settles Hanratty's guilt to the satisfaction of most right thinking people.

Those who still proclaim the innocence of Hanratty point to other circumstantial and direct evidence which suggests the DNA evidence is wrong, e.g. the parts of the Liverpool alibi not abandoned, the Rhyl alibi and the fact that the murderer was a poor driver whereas Hanratty was proficient at driving. I do not see why a calm rational debate cannot be had over these aspects of the case.

**richardnunweek** · 11-25-2009, 01:05 PM

Hi,
That was a long post Jenny, but it was from the heart, and full of conviction,
I agree about the Valerie aspect, she does receive far to much flak, but hey whats new, she has had to wear a tin helmet since 1962. what a life?
I agree with the unsatisfactory identity parades, in the sixties, I and a teenage friend had to walk up a high street , alongside other pedestrians picked at random, incidently of a far different age group, this was because a shop blind had been broken some time earlier[ not by us], and the shopkeeper had informed the police teenagers had done it.
The shopkeeper in question had seen us many times passing by, and as we walked by his shop, shouted to the police officers 'There the ones', and we were taken into custody, summoned to appear at a magistrates, and fined 25 pounds for the price of the blind, also court costs.
We protested our innocence, we had a barrister, who questioned the ID parade, but someone had to pay for the damage, so I Guess we were as good as any....
Anyway my point is the 1960s idea of identification parades were far from fair in many cases, and it is a strong possibility that VS was put under extreme pressure to single out a suspect.
That is not to say she got the wrong man however in this case.
Regards Richard.

**jimornot?** · 11-25-2009, 01:11 PM

re your post

Dear Babybird

I rather feel that you should have sent that as a PM as you hinted at. I have to confess that I didn't read the whole post so I may have missed some context

You are right, Valerie has suffered for all these years and hopefully found more peace when the DNA results backed up her evidence.

But don't forget that she wrongly identified someone at the first ID parade and so people are entitled to express their opinions without being attacked for setting back the cause of women for years. If their opinion is so flawed it will be seen as such by logical thinkers throughout and at the end of the day I doubt that any of us on this forum has much influence in the wider world so (I suggest) our opinions, thoughts, prejudices etc should be seen in that light and can be disregarded (even unanswered) if we so choose

Please don't forget that many posters who now believe in Hanrray's guilt were, at first convinved of his innocence. By definition they must have doubted Valerie's evidence at that time.

on a separate issue you were certainly attacked by Reg and you defended yourself perfectly well. Indeed you indicated confidence that you could and would stand up to bullies. 2 of your last few threads have been incredibly long and refer at some length to that bullying, please can I ask that you put it behind you once and for all and not let it cause you further concern. It has been a regrettable side effect of this forum (and indeed all of those I have visited over the years) that SOME (but not all remember) posters make personal & aggressive attacks against those who dare to have a different point of view. I think most would see through that and maybe - and all credit to you for this - people didn't rush to defend you did that very well yourself.

I don't post here now but look in all the time just awaiting something new. It has been hinted at by some but we are waiting with baited breath. I would be surprised if anything could change fairly entrenched views either way but it will be interesting.

all the best - hope you get your sleep.

Viv

**jimarilyn** · 11-25-2009, 03:00 PM

Originally posted by jimornot? View Post

Dear Babybird

I rather feel that you should have sent that as a PM as you hinted at. I have to confess that I didn't read the whole post so I may have missed some context

You are right, Valerie has suffered for all these years and hopefully found more peace when the DNA results backed up her evidence.

But don't forget that she wrongly identified someone at the first ID parade and so people are entitled to express their opinions without being attacked for setting back the cause of women for years. If their opinion is so flawed it will be seen as such by logical thinkers throughout and at the end of the day I doubt that any of us on this forum has much influence in the wider world so (I suggest) our opinions, thoughts, prejudices etc should be seen in that light and can be disregarded (even unanswered) if we so choose

Please don't forget that many posters who now believe in Hanrray's guilt were, at first convinved of his innocence. By definition they must have doubted Valerie's evidence at that time.

on a separate issue you were certainly attacked by Reg and you defended yourself perfectly well. Indeed you indicated confidence that you could and would stand up to bullies. 2 of your last few threads have been incredibly long and refer at some length to that bullying, please can I ask that you put it behind you once and for all and not let it cause you further concern. It has been a regrettable side effect of this forum (and indeed all of those I have visited over the years) that SOME (but not all remember) posters make personal & aggressive attacks against those who dare to have a different point of view. I think most would see through that and maybe - and all credit to you for this - people didn't rush to defend you did that very well yourself.

I don't post here now but look in all the time just awaiting something new. It has been hinted at by some but we are waiting with baited breath. I would be surprised if anything could change fairly entrenched views either way but it will be interesting.

all the best - hope you get your sleep.

Viv

Hi Viv,

As with the very intelligent Sara, it is very good to see you back posting. A fine, well balanced and thought out post I might add. Your impartiality is very impressive.
Like yourself I read about 70 % or so of the recent mammoth and provocative post by Babybird.
Although I'm not mentioned by name in that post I am very unjustly accused (along with Reg1965) of bullying tactics. Anyone who truly knows me would laugh their heads off at such a suggestion.

For anyone with an open mind I suggest you re-read Babybird's introductory post and dozen or so subsequent posts from September. Judge for yourselves.

Reg1965 submitted an excellent post (#4295) in mid-September which hits the nail right on the head regarding this matter. It's well worth reading again.

regards,
James

PS. Do any other posters feel as I do that Julie (Limewire) deserves a massive apology ?

**jimarilyn** · 11-25-2009, 04:54 PM

Hi Ron,

May I offer you a warm welcome to this most fascinating of threads. You come across as a very level headed and impartial person and I hope you continue to offer your thoughts on the matter.

**Victor** · 11-25-2009, 05:51 PM

Originally posted by jimarilyn View Post

Reg1965 submitted an excellent post (#4295) in mid-September which hits the nail right on the head regarding this matter. It's well worth reading again.

I find it utterly disturbing that anyone could describe post #4295 as "excellent" as it contain reprehensible and blatantly innaccurate statements like

To suggest that Valerie Storie didn't know that she was lying in the witness box is beyond comprehension.

and the ridiculous suggestion that believers in Hanratty's guilt want "to kill him again"

Do any other posters feel as I do that Julie (Limewire) deserves a massive apology ?

For what? I read all of Jen's post and found myself fully endorsing her sentiments.

KR,
Vic.

**jimarilyn** · 11-25-2009, 05:59 PM