a6 murder

[Victor]

As a matter of interest I recall you indicated you thought Hanratty was innocent until the DNA results were published - isn't that correct? If so, you must have had your own doubts about the accuracy of Valerie's recall but not because you thought she was lying but because she may have made an honest mistake?

Hi Viv,

If you're refering to the identification of Michael Clark, I believe it was an honest mistake, and that Valerie was under some pressure but without a picture of Clark we don't know how significant that mistake was.

KR,
Vic

[caz]

...the reason why his family fought his corner so passionately was because they knew him inside out and knew he was Innocent.

Oh this is getting beyond ridiculous.

How about his family didn’t particularly want to see him hang because he was still their flesh and blood, regardless of what he did on that one summer night of sheer bloody madness?

Have a little think about why juries are not made up of the kith and kin of the defendant.

Perhaps you'd care to address my concern that there are scumbags...ooops i mean, others convicted by the unjust use of an inappropriate forensic technique out there, for those of you so admirably concerned with the upholding of truth and justice to make a real difference to?

I think you were flogging a dead Hanratty here, bb. If Alphon's DNA had showed up instead of Hanratty's, do you think anyone would now be bleating about the shortcomings of the forensic technique used? They'd have been only too happy to accept Alphon's guilt and see Hanratty's name cleared. We probably all would, for that matter. The main thing was always to get whoever did this dreadful thing to Valerie and her lover. But apparently I'm not supposed to dwell on hypothetical positions. Hypothetical my arse. Logically it has to be true of any poster still staunchly defending Hanratty and/or accusing Alphon despite the contrary forensic indications. How much more forceful would their arguments be today, if the DNA result had been favourable to Hanratty, but the technique was now being rubbished by others?

Why were people calling for Hanratty to be exhumed if they weren't fully expecting the DNA evidence to come to his rescue like a knight on a fine white horse? When it didn't deliver it was immediately condemned as a wheezy old nag who had lost its way on a dark night. Funny that.

If indeed the gunman spoke for hours how come we have only been treated to very selective parts of it, which accounts for probably less than 20% of the total conversation between the three participants ? What about the other 80% ?

What about it? Morbid curiosity value only, surely. Valerie recognised the gunman's voice and his DNA was found forty years later on her semen stained knicker fragment. What more do you want from the woman - blood?

How is anyone prolonging Valerie's agony ? I very much doubt that she's even aware of this A6 thread. So enquiring minds should just accept as gospel everything she has said without considering and studying her evidence ?

Her testimony has been considered and studied to buggery and beyond, but the fact remains that it has been accepted, in law, that she correctly identified her rapist. And of course, Alphon was right there and she didn't recognise him at all. He didn't even come first in the Alphon lookalike contest. If Valerie was so unreliable, how can you be sure that the first man she picked out really looked like Alphon - apparently more like Alphon than Alphon did?

Staying at Ingledene on the night of the 22nd is just one example showing him to be innocent.

Oh really? He only needed the one example. Where were you, when all those people were trying - and failing - to clear his name then? Asleep with the proof under your pillow?

Alphon couldn’t leave the case alone, could he? The rat even sent that greeting card to the widow of Valerie’s murdered lover. His antics were not exactly designed to help the surviving victims of this very public horror to cope, were they? Why so little empathy? Has it all been used up on Hanratty?

If there were doubts in the original jury's mind, as to Valerie's complete reliability, they could have reflected them in the verdict. Maybe if we had been on that jury, we would both have had such doubts and been unable to convict. But that would still not have implied Hanratty's innocence. Any doubts in my mind concerned the total safety of the original conviction on the evidence presented at the time. I never saw any evidence that Hanratty could not have been the gunman.

Love,

Caz
X

[jimornot?]

Hi Viv,

If you're refering to the identification of Michael Clark, I believe it was an honest mistake, and that Valerie was under some pressure but without a picture of Clark we don't know how significant that mistake was.

KR,
Vic

hi Vic

I wasn't particularly referring to any one example but was merely trying to illustrate that any certainty about Valerie's ID of Hanratty would surely have weighted things such that you couldn't then reasonably believe in his innocence at that time (ie pre DNA). Ergo, thoughts that Hanratty might be innocent must have meant you had some doubts about the accuracy of her recall, that' s all .

(Graham - you also thought H was innocent at one time, do you see the point I am making here?)

Not sure I am making myself clear and I wasn't trying to promote an argument . I think there may have been some overreaction to SOME who chose to express doubts and I believe this doesn't automatically mean they are anti Valerie or lack empathy with the dreadful experience and appalling legacy she has had. That applies to recent posters actually expressing this as well as those who may have entertained some doubts in the past. Anyone lacking sympathy with her isn't worth expending energy, time and emotion on. I doubt if any posters here - irespective of what fence or camp they sit in/on - do fit into this category.

no more from me on this particular point - hope my thinking is a bit clearer

all the best

viv

[burkhilly]

Wow...........some great debate going on. Will keep dipping in.

[jimornot?]

Caz's last post

hi Caz
some very powerful points well made in yr last post.

I don't pretend to understand DNA etc and I have read all the posts about it but the results certainly did make me feel Hanratty must have been guilty. I then got back on the fence when doubts were expressed especially with all the staggering coincidences in this case. I think you are right about the reaction if we had seen a different DNA on the knickers or indeed only that of MG & VS

I did formerly think Alphon was the man (eg I think he looks very much like both ID pictures – Jimarilyn posted early on about this and I have yet to be convinced about the source of PLA's money). But, I can't see how it could have been a planned event given that VS and MG only moved to the cornfield after stopping elsewhere first. Likewise his DNA didn't show up and as you say, Valerie didn't pick him out of the ID parade - you and Babybird are right, if he Michael Clark did resemble him, it seems PLA couldn't even win his own look-a-like competition.

I find it absolutely amazing Alphon didn't get jailed for the continued abuses he perpetrated. Has anyone any ideas on why this would be - I know we discussed this some time before but I don't recall it being definitive. He was a pretty nasty bloke but not as bad as the rapist and murderer.

Over the past few months I have slid off the fence to the Jim-did-it side but I welcome counter arguments as it is surely why this thread exists and I certainly will not get heated with anyone who dares to argue an alternative viewpoint. Looking forward to the explosive revelations to follow, can't think what they are

All the best

Viv
PS another shady character seems to be Mr Ewer - did we really get to the bottom of the 'she saw him at the cleaners' story btw? Why did he say that or was it proved to have been made up

[jimarilyn]

Wow...........some great debate going on. Will keep dipping in.

Hi Yvonne,

Good to see you back too. Your posts are always very welcome and perceptive.

PS. I spent much of Saturday morning reading up on the "Cameo Murders" thread on that Liverpool website and was impressed by your contributions.
There are I'm sure you'll agree, several similarities between that case and the A6 case.
Although I've not got a copy of George Skelly's book I've read very favourable reviews of it.
I too believe George Kelly and Charles Connolly were framed.

Incidentally, my Auntie Doris knew George Kelly quite well. Her mum and dad ran a pub near Byrom Street/Scotland Road ( "O'Connors")shortly after the war which George would frequent. She's convinced of his innocence.

I wonder how alike Herbert Balmer and Basil Acott were, if at all ?

[Limehouse]

My response to babybird's accusations

I am completely mystified by the accusations aimed at me. I would never condone bullying, I have never called anyonme a liar, have never questioned anyone's qualifications, have never accessed someone's profile and commented on it and have only ever commented on the arrogance and smugness of a few posts where I felt competely justified. I just don't recognise the person who has been described as me in this post.

If I have not always responded to posts it is because I probably haven't read them. It takes me a long time to read things because I have to use the zoom button. If the topic is repetitive I often skip parts because I just don't have the time to read stuff I've read before in detail.

As I say, it has never been my intention to cause anyone offence and I am so upset by what I consider unfair accusations that I shall take no further part in this thread.

[P.L.A]

Bits And Pieces

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/hanratty-the-truth-at-last-1364434.html

Primrose Shipman still publicly proclaims belief in her husband’s innocence. Having shared his bed for over thirty years, she must have known Harold quite well. Possibly even better than Hanratty’s family, both male and female, knew James.

In quashing George Kelly’s guilty verdict, the Establishment acknowledged the shortcomings of his conviction. Why won’t they do this in Hanratty’s case? What is so special about this murder that makes them still cover it up after almost half a century?

Peter.

[P.L.A]

The Handkerchief

I know it is sometimes quite difficult to prove a negative, but as far as I’m concerned the claim that Hanratty handled the handkerchief in court and admitted it was his is fantasy. I believe it is a myth started on this forum, where it has become “fact” by its frequent repetition.

If it were true, then his DNA being found near the mucus on the cloth is not likely to have been a major plank in the Crown’s case at the second appeal. It would also surely have been an important point in the Crown’s summing up at the trial, but it wasn’t even mentioned.

Moreover, it does not fit in with Mrs France’s 1966 interview with The Sunday Times. Here, she said that she recognised the handkerchief as being very similar to the ones she laundered for James. She added that she kept quiet about it at the time because she didn’t want to get involved.

Something not quite right about all this. Any ideas?

Peter

[jimornot?]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...t-1364434.html


In quashing George Kelly’s guilty verdict, the Establishment acknowledged the shortcomings of his conviction. Why won’t they do this in Hanratty’s case? What is so special about this murder that makes them still cover it up after almost half a century?

Peter.

Hi Peter

Surely it is because the Establishment firmly believe the right verdict was achieved albeit initially via an unsound process. To be fair appeals have been heard and the Hanratty family seem to have set their (final?) hopes on the DNA

That being so, I was just thinking why documents regarding the case will not be in the public domain for much longer than is usual (I think I am right in that)

anyone have any ideas on why this should be?

ATB

viv

[jimornot?]

As I say, it has never been my intention to cause anyone offence and I am so upset by what I consider unfair accusations that I shall take no further part in this thread.

Hi Julie

I hope you can be persuaded to change your mind. I feel that this thread needs contrary opinions in order to survive and I never found your own posts offensive. I have written this several times before but I cannot see why personal attacks need to be made - I don't want to see them and I'm sure others feel the same.

Please stick around

viv

[RonIpstone]

Why were people calling for Hanratty to be exhumed if they weren't fully expecting the DNA evidence to come to his rescue like a knight on a fine white horse? When it didn't deliver it was immediately condemned as a wheezy old nag who had lost its way on a dark night.

I think what happened was that the Hanratty supporters wanted to use DNA techniques to establish his innocence. At page 445 of Woffinden's work, he says that :

"In making the original submission to the Home Office in 1994, we had requested that DNA work ............ be carried out on the surviving exhibits...... We had hoped that state-of-the-art forensic analysis might be able to provide a DNA profile of the gunman which could be matched with a putative profile of James Hanratty (to be obtained from his brother's and mother's DNA).

"At that time, we were frustrated; the tests did not yield meaningful results. The CCRC spent much time and resources trying to get DNA results from the surviving materials, although the results, at the time of writing, remained equivocal."

As I understand it, a good DNA profile eventually was obtained from the surviving exhibits, and that this seemed to match the putative profile of Hanratty, as obtained from mother and brother. It was at this stage that the Hanratty supporters became less keen on the application of "state-of-the-art forensic analysis" and opposed the exhumation of Hanratty. I think that Paul Foot described the exhumation as "grotesque".

The DNA clearly established Hanratty's guilt, and the correctness of Storie's identification.

[RonIpstone]

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 (sic) guilt were, at first convinved (sic) of his innocence. By definition they must have doubted Valerie's evidence at that time.

We will never know what was said to Storie by the Police prior to either of the identification parades. Miss Storie has said in her defence that she made the misidentification in the first parade because she thought that she had to pick someone, regardless of whether she thought the man so identified was her rapist. In other words, she thought she had to pick the man most like the rapist, even though she thought him not to be the rapist/murderer.

I would take this with a pinch of salt. I would think that VS had been told by the Police that they had got the man they thought responsible for the crimes and all she had to do was identify him. Her failure to do so probably saved an innocent man (Alphon) from going to the gallows.

Her identification of Hanratty is open to objection, but none of the objections can be said to be the fault of Storie. In order for the ID parade to have been fair to Hanratty, it should have contained only Londoners with dyed hair, all of whom being in a state of considerable agitation. That it was not was either the Police's fault or the fault of Hanratty's solicitor.

Once Miss Storie had picked out the "right man", that is Hanratty, her evidence was given honestly and with a genuinely held belief that JH was her rapist and attempted murderer and the murderer of Michael Gregsten. This belief would have been induced by the flawed identification.

But the DNA has proved her right, and no one can say that had the ID parade been conducted with more Hanratty-like paradees, she would not have identified James Hanratty.

[jimornot?]

We will never know what was said to Storie by the Police prior to either of the identification parades. Miss Storie has said in her defence that she made the misidentification in the first parade because she thought that she had to pick someone, regardless of whether she thought the man so identified was her rapist. In other words, she thought she had to pick the man most like the rapist, even though she thought him not to be the rapist/murderer.

I would take this with a pinch of salt. I would think that VS had been told by the Police that they had got the man they thought responsible for the crimes and all she had to do was identify him. Her failure to do so probably saved an innocent man (Alphon) from going to the gallows.

Her identification of Hanratty is open to objection, but none of the objections can be said to be the fault of Storie. In order for the ID parade to have been fair to Hanratty, it should have contained only Londoners with dyed hair, all of whom being in a state of considerable agitation. That it was not was either the Police's fault or the fault of Hanratty's solicitor.

Once Miss Storie had picked out the "right man", that is Hanratty, her evidence was given honestly and with a genuinely held belief that JH was her rapist and attempted murderer and the murderer of Michael Gregsten. This belief would have been induced by the flawed identification.

But the DNA has proved her right, and no one can say that had the ID parade been conducted with more Hanratty-like paradees, she would not have identified James Hanratty.

Hi Ron

A very balanced response, thanks

I think most agree that Valerie was entirely honest in her beliefs she had picked the right man - why on earth would she want to condemn an innocent man? As you say, DNA evidence backs this up and it is to be hope this has been of comfort for the past few years

In this age of people writing books an seeking celebrity about the most mundane matters, it shows how traumatized she must still be that she has remained pretty much silent on this case all these years. An all the more kudos to her for that

Atb

Viv

[Graham]

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.

Good morning James,

will you be withdrawing your warm welcome to Ron Ipstone now that he's come down on the side of the JimDidItItes???


Graham