a6 murder

[RonIpstone]

This is how I see the DNA evidence at the appeal.


1. The surviving exhibits which provided the DNA were (1) a sample or fragment of VS’s knickers which had been excised from the rest of the knickers on 29 December 1961 by the pathologist, Dr. Grant who was examining the exhibits at the request of Hanratty’s solicitors and (2) the hanky in which the murder gun was found on the No. 26A bus.

Sorry, should have written No. 36A bus.

[jimarilyn]

Hello to all. I have been away from the forum for some time now and it will take me a while to catch up with this most fascinating thread. Glad to see that familiar posters are still here and some new ones have joined the throng. I am looking forward to locking intellectual horns again with those who claim to know that Jim did it. That doesn't automatically mean I think Alphon did it or that Jim didn't do it. I am merely seeking truth. I think that's what most of us are doing.

Is this now an open and shut case as some would have us believe? If that were true then surely we would all have lost interest ages ago and would confine our thoughts and arguments to more recent mysteries. Despite what some would call overwhelming DNA evidence, there still lingers doubt for some of us. Perhaps in time all will be revealed. Will it be in the form of a further breakthrough in medical science that will change one way or the other our perception of the forensics or will it be some revelation when hitherto unavailable documentation eventually makes its way into the public domain?

Julie (Limehouse), I truly hope that you will reconsider leaving the forum and perhaps in time you will return to add your voice to the arguments being expounded on this most amazing forum.

babybird67, I managed to get through your mammoth post although I have to say I skimmed some parts to enable me to get to the end but I think I got the gist of what you are saying. Irrespective of whether I agree or disagree with what you had to say, I must congratulate you for your ability to express yourself. You seem to be here as a staunch supporter of Valerie and believe me I have the utmost sympathy for the ordeal that she was put through by the perpetrator of the horrendous crime that took place on Deadman's Hill. However, I think it is not disrespectful to her to suggest that maybe she was an unreliable witness or that she could be mistaken in her identification of her assailant. I do believe that she is convinced that she picked out the right man at the second identification parade but that doesn't convince me that she is infallible because infallibility is not a human trait. What I am really getting at is for you to not assume that anyone, who dares to suggest that Valerie may have made a mistake in her assertion that Hanratty was the assailant, is attacking Valerie. That's not the case and I believe that we all make mistakes even when we are sure of our facts. Valerie is not on trial and I don't think that women's rights are at stake here. Please don't take any theorising about the circumstances involving Valerie's identification and subsequent testimony as personal attacks upon her. It's impossible to take a rational view of this case without examining all aspects from all angles. It's inevitable that sometimes someone will be offended by the raking over of the ashes of this case. Perhaps we are all guilty sometimes of writing something which is clumsy or thoughtless and I am no exception. I doubt that anyone truly writes specifically to belittle or offend another poster. It happens more through frustration than through genuine malice!

I wonder what is hidden in those archives that we are not allowed to have access to for many years to come? Why the need for such secrecy?

Regards,
James

Hi JamesDean,

Excellently put. May I say that it's great to see you back on these boards. Your grasp and understanding of the DNA aspect to the case, like Reg1965's and Dupplin Muir's, is most impressive as witnessed by all those illuminating posts of yours.

Hope you stick around.

regards,
James

[Victor]

Hi James and James,

I'm happy to accept James Dean's comment that Reg was frustrated and inconsiderate, although I wouldn't accept that he was without malice as he basically accused Valerie of conspiring to murder Hanratty, without any evidence whatsoever.

In any case, Ron's point 6 quoted below effectively summarises the DNA situation.

6. But showing that there was a chance of contamination is not enough. The difficulty is that if Hanratty’s DNA had contaminated the exhibit, the DNA profile of the rapist/murder would still be present on the knickers. In this case not only has Hanratty, possibly posthumously, contaminated the knickers, or fragments thereof, he has removed the DNA of the real rapist/murderer and substituted his own.

KR,
Vic.

[P.L.A]

http://paul-magee.com/2009/11/louise-anderson/

but on the Louise Anderson link she talks of Hanratty's rather high pitched voice which I would think would be pretty memorable.
viv

I have spoken with the daughter of the owners of the Blackpool doss house Hanratty used shortly before his arrest. She booked the fugitive in and showed him to his room. This lady described Hanratty’s voice as very soft and effeminate. Storie said her assailant had a soft voice.

Interestingly, none of the Rhyl alibi witnesses appear to have commented on this characteristic.

I’m sure we all have our own opinions on how Alphon’s (God bless him) voice is best described.

Peter

[P.L.A]

How would that blackmail work? Give me money or I'll tell everyone what happened and put a noose around my own neck? Alphon has nothing to bargain with, without implicating himself. It just wouldn't work.

Added to this, are we to believe that Alphon successfully blackmailed someone who takes contracts out on people? He didn’t appear to spend almost half a century looking over his shoulder.

He was rather successful in dragging out his fifteen minutes of fame.

Peter.

[SteveS]

This is how I see the DNA evidence at the appeal.

Hi Ron

I don't know whether you have read my post #4427 before.

I therefore will not repeat myself unnecessarily as that post covers any of the points you have made.

Thnx
Steve

[RonIpstone]

Hi Ron

I don't know whether you have read my post #4427 before.

I therefore will not repeat myself unnecessarily as that post covers any of the points you have made.

Thnx
Steve

I have now. None of the points you make there were taken by Michael Mansfield QC in the Court of Appeal.

Mr Mansfield QC brought evidence that contamination was quite likely, but none that showed how the contaminating evidence could at one and the same time not only contaminate the exhibit but also remove the DNA of the rapist.

If Prof Jamieson wants to tell us how this could happen then I am all ears.

[burkhilly]

Whilst I cannot claim to understand DNA testing, I acknowledge that there could have been contamination, given the way the items were stored.

However, the fact remains that there were apparently only three DNA samples present on the knicker sample. These were identified as VS, MG and JH.

As many posters have said if JH is innocent "where is the rapist's DNA".

Having said this I just feel that JH was innocent, or perhaps I just want him to be innocent.

So many on this thread are knowledgeable and know so much about the case and are convinced of JH's guilt. Despite reading lots of books, articles and of course this thread, I'm still kind of sitting on the fence.

Come on DM - where's this post you promised last week?

[larue]

hi Jimornot?

Hi Larue
last time I was up there the New Road cricket Ground was completely under water (a couple of summers ago).
Viv

it sure was! it took 'em ages to find the ball...

the swans loved it though

only half a bottle - he did get very cold????
Viv

well, he's bound to get cold at least once more this winter so he can have the other 1/2 a bottle then
[btw, don't nobody tell him it's st andrews day, or he'll neck it today to celebrate]

[P.L.A]

In it’s judgment, the Appeal Court said that even without the DNA, there was a very strong case against Hanratty.

It would be interesting to know what their verdict would have been if this evidence had not been available.

Peter.

[Stewart P Evans]

Documentary

I recall watching what I believe was the last comprehensive TV documentary on the Hanratty case. The scientist involved in the DNA testing stated that primary contamination was very different to secondary contamination (such as might occur if items were stored together) and that in this case the samples tested were all the result of primary contamination, thus reducing the chance of accidental contamination virtually to zero.

[larue]

hi burkhilly

As many posters have said if JH is innocent "where is the rapist's DNA".

a very good question, but what would constitute a very good answer? i put forth a couple of suggestions for this some months ago, and was pooh-poohed for my trouble, however, i at least still think that one of the reasons could be valid, and that is the most simplistic, to wit: the rapist did not ejaculate, and so, deposited no genetic material. it answers the question, but is it true? who knows. popular opinion seems to be that it is not a tenable suggestion.

Having said this I just feel that JH was innocent, or perhaps I just want him to be innocent.

now this really fascinating. why would you want him to be innocent? i cannot remember when or why i first became interested in this case. like, why the a6 murder and not one of so many other famous cases? don't know, but i did harbour more than a suspicion that jh suffered a miscarriage of justice, as had many before him, and since.

when i first read aboot the proposed dna test, i was living in the USA, and i found an article on , i think, a bbc news page, i can remember thinking something like 'now we'll see what the butler saw', and was quite suprised when i realized the page i was reading was already a couple of years old, and that in fact the dna test had already been completed and appeared to support the guilty verdict. 'so he really did do it' was my first reaction. i was really suprised at this, given the support of and the duration of the innocence campaign. so the notion of a botched dna test, was quite easy to believe in, as the result seemed to fly in the face of the other 'evidence' against him. i still think this.

I'm still kind of sitting on the fence.

so am i. not because i want jh to be innocent, but moreso because of the notion that somehow 'the establishment' had gotten it wrong. experts can be, and are, like the rest of us, fallible and prone to error... and i get a strange sense of satisfaction when this is proven

[larue]

I recall watching what I believe was the last comprehensive TV documentary on the Hanratty case. The scientist involved in the DNA testing stated that primary contamination was very different to secondary contamination (such as might occur if items were stored together) and that in this case the samples tested were all the result of primary contamination, thus reducing the chance of accidental contamination virtually to zero.

hi Stewart

which documentary was this? was it recent?

i understand 'secondary contamination (such as might occur if items were stored together)' which is what Michael Hanratty says happened, so what would constitute 'primary contamination'? and why would it reduce the chance of accidental contamination virtually to zero?

[Stewart P Evans]

Don't Ask Me...

hi Stewart
which documentary was this? was it recent?
i understand 'secondary contamination (such as might occur if items were stored together)' which is what Michael Hanratty says happened, so what would constitute 'primary contamination'? and why would it reduce the chance of accidental contamination virtually to zero?

I have the documentary on tape somewhere - but don't ask me to find it as I have around 500 unsorted videocassette tapes. I am no forensic scientist, although obviously I have had many dealings with the science during my police career, but, as I recall, it was stated that primary contamination, i.e the first contamination of the exhibit by the fluid excreted by the suspect, is very distinctive from any later contamination if it occurs.

[P.L.A]

I seem to remember the scientist talked about primary and secondary contact.

Presumably, secondary contact is contamination.

My knowledge of DNA could be written on a pin head.

Peter