a6 murder

[jimarilyn]

Hi All

Hey, hasn't this been a good week for posters who said they were leaving the thread forever to change their mind??!! Wonder why?

Hi Graham,

Methinks this is a case of the pot calling.......................

You've done exactly the same thing yourself in the past.

[P.L.A]

Publicly naming a suspect in the early 1960s

Despite what Woffinden claims Peter Woods said, I seem to remember that it was not uncommon in those days for the police to issue the name of somebody they were seeking in order “to help with their enquiries”.

In cases where identification was not an issue, they also issued pictures. They obviously couldn’t do this in the A6 investigation.

It was not unusual to see the two police mug shots on the TV of a suspect – front and side view. This lead to complaints that jurors at any subsequent trial who could remember seeing the police appeal would realise the defendant had a criminal record.

In Acott’s high profile case before the A6 murder he issued Victor John Terry’s name and picture soon after the murder at Lloyds bank in Durrington.

(Doesn’t footballer John Terry bear an uncanny resemblance to Victor John Terry? – maybe it’s my eyes)

Peter

[Graham]

Hi Graham,

Methinks this is a case of the pot calling.......................

You've done exactly the same thing yourself in the past.

Hi James,

Yes I did, and as you well know I left this thread when it got unbearably nasty largely due to a certain person who shall remain nameless. I didn't leave it because people disagreed with what I posted. Big difference, I think.
At least these days we seem by and large to be more or less polite to one another, which is good.

Cheers,

Graham

[jimarilyn]

In Acott’s high profile case before the A6 murder he issued Victor John Terry’s name and picture soon after the murder at Lloyds bank in Durrington.

(Doesn’t footballer John Terry bear an uncanny resemblance to Victor John Terry? – maybe it’s my eyes)

Just done a quick google search for images of Victor John Terry, Peter, but couldn't find anything. Not knowing what he looked like I cannot give an opinion. Who knows perhaps John is a grandson of his.

Just discovered that Victor Terry was executed on my 9th birthday. No wonder I couldn't get to sleep that night !

[Limehouse]

Hi James,

Yes I did, and as you well know I left this thread when it got unbearably nasty largely due to a certain person who shall remain nameless. I didn't leave it because people disagreed with what I posted. Big difference, I think.
At least these days we seem by and large to be more or less polite to one another, which is good.

Cheers,

Graham

If it is me to whom you are referring, I did not leave because someone disagreed with what I posted. I left because I was accused of doing things I most certainly did not do. The post concerned came durng a week when I was under considerable stress at work and it upset me deeply.

Why did I return? As soon as that post appeared, I started to receive PMs of personal support. Even before I had read the post concerned, other people had read it and PMd me. These PMs were from posters supporting both sides of the Hanratty-did-it, Hanratty-didn't-do-it argument. I was urged not to leave and I agreed to give myself some time to gather my thoughts and feelings.

In fact, Graham, it was your post posing some interesting questions concerning the case, and miving away from the heated DNA argument, that inspired me to return.

Perhaps this is a good time to publically thank all the people who took the trouble to PM me.

[Graham]

Hi Julie,

I was a bit disingenuous with my (intended to be light-hearted) comment in my previous post, and I'm sorry if I annoyed you.

I do appreciate that there was a problem between yourself and another poster to this thread, but my policy these days is to keep completely away from anything that even sniffs of personal condemnation, and I stopped reading relevant posts as soon as I realised their content. I just hope that whatever went between you and the other poster is now resolved.

I appreciate your comment about the questions I posed.

Thanks and regards,

Graham

[jimarilyn]

If it is me to whom you are referring, I did not leave because someone disagreed with what I posted. I left because I was accused of doing things I most certainly did not do. The post concerned came durng a week when I was under considerable stress at work and it upset me deeply.

Why did I return? As soon as that post appeared, I started to receive PMs of personal support. Even before I had read the post concerned, other people had read it and PMd me. These PMs were from posters supporting both sides of the Hanratty-did-it, Hanratty-didn't-do-it argument. I was urged not to leave and I agreed to give myself some time to gather my thoughts and feelings.

In fact, Graham, it was your post posing some interesting questions concerning the case, and miving away from the heated DNA argument, that inspired me to return.

Perhaps this is a good time to publically thank all the people who took the trouble to PM me.

Hi Julie,

I'm sure I speak on behalf of most everyone on this thread in saying that it's great to see you back posting. You are a lady and you have a great knowledge and understanding of this case. Long may you continue to offer your very perceptive thoughts on the matter.

[Graham]

I'm sure I speak on behalf of most everyone on this thread in saying that it's great to see you back posting. You are a lady and you have a great knowledge and understanding of this case. Long may you continue to offer your very perceptive thoughts on the matter.

Hear, hear!

Graham

[P.L.A]

New words in the English language

Jimdiditites and Hanrattyites.

You have to laugh.

Peter

[jimarilyn]

Hi Graham,

Earlier on today I keyed the words 'Acott, Gunther Podola' into a Google search. One of the first results that came up in that search directed to me to page 15 of this thread which I then accessed. Scrolling down that page a little I came across a very interesting post of yours (from the original lost thread) dated October 6th 2007.

I was immediately struck (and surprised) by the first two lines of that post which I have taken the liberty of quoting below....

"Until the DNA results were published, I'd have bet my sweet bippy that Hanratty had been stitched up for the A6 murder. And I think that goes for 99% of the people taking an interest in this crime."

What I would like to ask you is did you believe it was the police who had stitched him up or person/persons unknown ?

If it was the police did you believe it was Acott and Oxford ?
If it was person/persons unknown did you perhaps suspect Alphon, Ewer, France, Nudds ?

[jimornot?]

Jimdiditites and Hanrattyites.

You have to laugh.

Peter

Wonder when will they go in the Oxford English Dictionary?

Phrases I have learnt include LCN, exculpatory (but still don't really understand what it means) and sorry Vic, something about identical twins DNA that I have since forgotten but KNOW it is out there

on the subject of things being out there... Stewart Evans' post about hearsay evidence was very tantalising to say the least. But he made it clear it was inadamissable so I feel we can ignore it really. I also share the view that it is easy to say something in passing that helps suppoort a case without having any onus to prove it - as alluded to in a recent post.

But, far more tantalising was DM's post (and even Tony) who indicated something was about to be revealed. COME ON GUYS we need it to re-invigorate this thread (Graham's efforts to keep debate going on the anomalies of the case notwithstanding).

atb

Viv

[jimarilyn]

Phrases I have learnt include LCN, exculpatory (but still don't really understand what it means) and sorry Vic, something about identical twins DNA that I have since forgotten but KNOW it is out there

Hi Viv,

Not forgetting all those "Allelujahs" on the DNA thread ? ......oops I mean 'alleles'.

[jimornot?]

Hi Viv,

Not forgetting all those "Allelujahs" on the DNA thread ? ......oops I mean 'alleles'.

I don't understand the definitions leave alone the actual words. looked up alleles and wiki gave it as

An allele (pronounced /ˈæliːl/ (UK), /əˈliːl/ (US); from the Greek αλληλος allelos, meaning each other) is one of a series of different forms of a gene. The word is a short form of allelomorph ('other form'), which was used in the early days of genetics to describe variant forms of a gene detected as different phenotypes. Alleles are now understood to be alternative DNA sequences at the same physical gene locus, which may or may not result in different phenotypic traits. In any particular diploid organism, with two copies of each chromosome, the genotype for each gene comprises the pair of alleles present at that locus, which are the same in homozygotes and different in heterozygotes. A population or species of organisms typically includes multiple alleles at each locus among various individuals. Allelic variation at a locus is measurable as the number of alleles (polymorphism) present, or the proportion of heterozygotes (heterozygosity) in the population


for starters there are 4 words in bold I would then have to look up. Thank goodness for SteveS and Vic who clearly understand all that more than I care to


all the best James

Viv
Lost and bewildered in Sussex

[Limehouse]

Hi Julie,

I was a bit disingenuous with my (intended to be light-hearted) comment in my previous post, and I'm sorry if I annoyed you.

I do appreciate that there was a problem between yourself and another poster to this thread, but my policy these days is to keep completely away from anything that even sniffs of personal condemnation, and I stopped reading relevant posts as soon as I realised their content. I just hope that whatever went between you and the other poster is now resolved.

I appreciate your comment about the questions I posed.

Thanks and regards,

Graham

Hello Graham,

Sorry to sound cranky, it's just that I still feel a bit sore about things.

I think you are completely correct in keeping away from spats between posters. I did not have a problem with the person concerned, but it seems they had a huge problem with me - and hit me with it all completely out of the blue.

Of all the posters on this thread, you are one person who could almost convince me that Hanratty was guilty - in fact you almost did at one time. Your debates are logical, politely conducted and not based on emotive issues. I could say the same about your postings on other threads too.

I think this thread could achieve real progress and it does so, just as long as things stay polite, reasoned and objective as far as possible.

Look forward to exchanging postings with you into the future.

Julie

[Limehouse]

Hi Julie,

I'm sure I speak on behalf of most everyone on this thread in saying that it's great to see you back posting. You are a lady and you have a great knowledge and understanding of this case. Long may you continue to offer your very perceptive thoughts on the matter.

Thank you so much for your continuing support Jim. The turn the debate has taken in recent days certainly convinces me that there is much value in exploring these unresolved issues about the gun and Hanratty's whereabouts immediately after the crimes.

I also think there is much mileage in exploring further the true role of shady characters like Nudds, France and perhaps Ewer - although there is less reason to consider him shady but some grounds for considering him to be a littel murky.

Julie