Tweet
Originally posted by caz
View Post
.......How about thanking Stewart for becoming a little less cryptic then? 
It infuriates me when people are criticised or insulted for not providing enough information and then, when they do provide something more, it's ignored because it's unwelcome news and the criticism just moves on to something else.
You have now learned that Hanratty had material in his room indicating he was ‘very highly sexed in a perverted way’; and if, for argument’s sake, France's suicide notes were to reveal one day that he had inside knowledge of Hanratty's involvement (and perhaps his 'tastes'), would you be prepared to reconsider your belief in this man’s innocence?
Indeed, bb. And I think the point here is that we can hardly be expected to treat the material found in Hanratty's room as though it never existed, and not to discuss its nature and relevance, when unsupported speculation about faulty - even faked - DNA results, and the criminal involvement of other players in the case, has been allowed to run riot and indeed is why this thread exists at all. If the rule is that anything that would have been inadmissible in court, or is not fully documented, must be ignored and forgotten, so be it. But the rule has to apply across the board or not at all. In short, if it’s not fair to the convicted man’s memory to speculate about certain material found in his room, then it’s certainly not fair to speculate about other individuals, who were never on trial, being guilty in Hanratty’s stead.
Love,
Caz
X
It infuriates me when people are criticised or insulted for not providing enough information and then, when they do provide something more, it's ignored because it's unwelcome news and the criticism just moves on to something else.
You have now learned that Hanratty had material in his room indicating he was ‘very highly sexed in a perverted way’; and if, for argument’s sake, France's suicide notes were to reveal one day that he had inside knowledge of Hanratty's involvement (and perhaps his 'tastes'), would you be prepared to reconsider your belief in this man’s innocence?
Indeed, bb. And I think the point here is that we can hardly be expected to treat the material found in Hanratty's room as though it never existed, and not to discuss its nature and relevance, when unsupported speculation about faulty - even faked - DNA results, and the criminal involvement of other players in the case, has been allowed to run riot and indeed is why this thread exists at all. If the rule is that anything that would have been inadmissible in court, or is not fully documented, must be ignored and forgotten, so be it. But the rule has to apply across the board or not at all. In short, if it’s not fair to the convicted man’s memory to speculate about certain material found in his room, then it’s certainly not fair to speculate about other individuals, who were never on trial, being guilty in Hanratty’s stead.
Love,
Caz
X
Caz is quite right, thank you Stewart for letting us have the information. It fuels the thought processes as to what it might have been and it may well be less (or substantially more) lurid and sordid than we might imagine but we may never know.
I would hope any new 'evidence' - hearsay or not - could be taken on board with a view to seeing the extent to which it tips the scales either way -however tiny that shift. I seem to recall Carole France wasn't damning in her assessment of Hanratty's behaviour towards her so maybe that should have more significance? [I know he was hardly virtuous towards her though]
Caz, I agree 100% that we need to be consistent in deciding what can or can't be discussed. It seems to me worthwhile to consider all matters reasonably fair to debate albeit with some regard to those who are directly affected by this case esp Valerie and the sons of MG. I think this thread is pretty well self regulating even if emotions do run high sometimes.
Looking forward to more hot issues
all the best
Viv
PS Vic please tell me again how to capture quotes better than repeating the text
] nudie ladies with all their bits and pieces airbrushed out. i think the vicar could look at that mag without embarrasement. [ i know our's did. come to that, i think he may have been in it!!!] nah, just kidding
Comment