a6 murder

[larue]

hi Hatchett

Either the DNA is accepted or not accepted, which has to be a personal assessment.

precicely!!!

It would be interesting to see how these arguments have developed in a hundred years from now. My guess is that they will still revolve around the same issues.
Best wishes.

you could well be right there too! exept i won't be around to continue the debate...

happy new year to you all... and keep posting

[Victor]

those who were convinced of Hanratty's innocence prior to the DNA results were so convinced because the evidence was so thin and appeared, in places, to be contrived.

Happy New Year Julie and everyone,

There's the possibility that those who believed Hanratty was not guilty prior to the DNA results did not believe he was innocent, just that the case was not strong enough "beyond reasonable doubt" to convict.

Certainly some of the evidence is questionable, such as Langdale, but some is very strong, such as the cartridge cases in the Vienna, that has been undermined by referring to convoluted and unrealistic conspiracy theories.

To have doubted the evidence, they must have then doubted the testimony of crucial witnesses such as Valerie Storie.

Again, you seem to be assuming that the "reasonable doubts" over Valerie's identification - her poor eyesight, limited lighting, Paul Foot's "3 glimpses"- means that she was wrong in identifying Hanratty, when that is not neccesarily true. It is absolutely possible to have reasonable doubts that something is true without it being false.

Secondly, the only part of Valerie's testimony that was doubted was the identification of Hanratty, the vast majority of the rest is undeniable.

I think, given the evidence and testimony given by Valerie Storie, there should have been much more forensic evidence in the car.

I agree, provided that it wasn't cleaned before the car was found.

She removed her knickers and replaced them after the rape. There should have been much more forensic evidence on the car seat and there was none. I accept that no other DNA profile was found but that does nothing to convince me on the grounds that if the killer's forensic evidence can be missing from the car, it can be missing from the knicker fragment tested.

I just cannot accept that a visible semen stain that was blood typed in 1961 and shown to undeniably have been the rapists' semen could mysteriously vanish.

I also noted that you re-stated the assumption that Ewer and Anderson were acquainted when this has not been proven, and Ewer categorically denied it.

KR,
Vic.

[Graham]

Was it Dupplin Muir who said he was going to post some revelatory news about the A6 Crime? I wish he would, 'cos the thread needs something quick!

Graham

[richardnunweek]

Hi Guys,
As someone who lived through that period, and therefore familar with the case, I can honestly say [ through experience] that policing was far from honest during that time, I had been framed, albeit on a much lower level during that era, simply because the police wanted a result in a court case.
So is it possible that hanratty was framed ?, yes of course it is.
However the forensics of modern day simply can't be overlooked, and even though the case originally looked inconclusive, it has strengthened surely beyond doubt via DNA.
But even having said that, I must admit to having doubts still in my mind, that is why we have this wonderful thread ongoing. and long may it continue.
Regards Richard.

[Graham]

Hi Richard,

I don't think Hanratty was framed. I think it was simply very fortuitous for the police that Alphon was made known to them via the manager of the Alexandra Court, and I'm sure that Acott & Co couldn't believe their luck regarding what transpired. Yet precisely how Acott made the Ryan-Hanratty connection has never been fully explained, and IMHO there is a whiff of wheeler-dealing behind the scenes with regard to that.

I also believe that Hanratty's defence was not the best-prepared there ever was, nor indeed was the prosecution at his trial. But it was such a high-profile case, with the media baying for a result, and after the longest murder-trial in British history, together with a marathon session for the jury, it could possibly have been a case of the jury giving the benefit of the doubt to the prosecution, rather than the other way around. This is what people found so disturbing about the A6 Case, and why so many high-profile commentators pushed hard for Hanratty's innocence. Personally, I'd have thought that a mis-trial would have been the fairest outcome of any appeal at the time - in Scotland, the verdict would have been, I'm convinced, 'not proven'.

But then, of course, we have the DNA...

Cheers,

Graham

[RonIpstone]

Hi Hatchett,

I accept that no other DNA profile was found but that does nothing to convince me on the grounds that if the killer's forensic evidence can be missing from the car, it can be missing from the knicker fragment tested.

But in 1961 the boffins were able to get a positive blood group test for the rapist from the knickers fragment showing that the rapist was blood group O, therefore to the untrained eye (mine), one would expect the DNA of the rapist to be present in 1961 on the knickers fragment.

On the other hand, in 1961 the scientists could not find any material in the car upon which they could perform tests to determine the identity of the rapist/killer. If the Moggie Minor had been filed away for 40 years or more, then subjected to modern day forensic analysis, it might have disclosed more evidence as to the identity of the killer. That 847 BHN was not filed away should not be taken as an indication that the authorities wished to conceal any evidence it might have provided for the future.

[RonIpstone]

Hi Richard,

I don't think Hanratty was framed.


Graham

I agree.

I also believe that Hanratty's defence was not the best-prepared there ever was, nor indeed was the prosecution at his trial.
Cheers,

Graham

I also agree, but the reason for the defence's lack of preparation can be laid directly at the door of James Hanratty himself who chose to keep quite about his 'actual' whereabouts on the night of the murder.

The defence was severely handicapped by Hanratty's change of alibi at such a late stage in the proceedings. This must have weighed heavily with the jury.

But the fact that Hanratty might have had a good (that is one capable of being substantiated) alibi makes the spectre of him being framed even more remote. How would those who wished to frame him know that he would have such difficulty in proving where he actually was on the night of the murder?

[Limehouse]

Good points concerning the alibi Ron. Why on earth did Hanratty change his alibi? Had he established the Ryhl alibi to start with, he would have had no problem convincing the jury where he had been because there were people willing to testify that he had been there.

[Limehouse]

Happy New Year Julie and everyone,

There's the possibility that those who believed Hanratty was not guilty prior to the DNA results did not believe he was innocent, just that the case was not strong enough "beyond reasonable doubt" to convict.

Certainly some of the evidence is questionable, such as Langdale, but some is very strong, such as the cartridge cases in the Vienna, that has been undermined by referring to convoluted and unrealistic conspiracy theories.


Again, you seem to be assuming that the "reasonable doubts" over Valerie's identification - her poor eyesight, limited lighting, Paul Foot's "3 glimpses"- means that she was wrong in identifying Hanratty, when that is not neccesarily true. It is absolutely possible to have reasonable doubts that something is true without it being false.

Secondly, the only part of Valerie's testimony that was doubted was the identification of Hanratty, the vast majority of the rest is undeniable.


I agree, provided that it wasn't cleaned before the car was found.


I just cannot accept that a visible semen stain that was blood typed in 1961 and shown to undeniably have been the rapists' semen could mysteriously vanish.

I also noted that you re-stated the assumption that Ewer and Anderson were acquainted when this has not been proven, and Ewer categorically denied it.

KR,
Vic.

Hi Vic, A Happy New Year to you and yours.

I'll take your points one by one.

1. I don't consider the evidence concerning the cartridges to be 'very strong'. They were found weeks after the murder, and weeks after the gun and remaining cartridges were in police possession.

2. Valerie's identification of Hanratty was made mainly on the basis of his dialect (be quiet will you, I'm finking'). This was after she visually examined the men on parade for twenty minutes. Given that the parade was local, and Hanratty was very likely the only true Londoner among the line-up, and given that the original description of the killer resulted in a line-up of men who resembled Alphon, not Hanratty, it is safe to conlcude that Valerie's identification is open to question [B]but I believe she believed she had picked the right man[B] supported as she was by Acott.

3. The semen stain was blood-typed as being a O secretor - a common blood type.

4. Were Anderson and Ewer acquainted? I think there is a strong possibility that they were and I will return to this. Of course, Ewer would deny the association because Anderson was strongly suspected of receiving stolen goods and why would Ewer want to be associated with someone like that?

5. Was the car cleaned before it was dumped? Well, it could have been, but who cleaned it? A killer would probably have cleaned, or attempted to clean, the blood up rather than risk being found driving a car splattered with blood. But someone who needed the blood to be there but nothing much else could certainly have cleaned it.

[Andrew]

Happy New Year, one and all.
Regarding the (lack of) forensic evidence in the car - in about ’68 or ’69 I went to a Metropolitan Police exhibition in Battersea Park. It was a showcase for how they were fighting crime, latest technologies etc. Apart from the usual fingerprints and so on, I remember that they were particularly proud of a way of identifying engine oil spots that had been spilt in the road and matching them to a suspect vehicle. They also had a way of referencing tread marks left at the scene to a record file of every tyre ever made (including remoulded tyres). The size of the tyre would be used to identify the type of vehicle involved. That’s how they were thinking in the 60’s and none of it is helpful in this case.
In the absence of fingerprints our best hope would have been for the discovery of a hair in the car. They didn’t have DNA, but they could have determined if it had been dyed which, of course, would have been significant.
If the car had been cleaned out in order to remove hairs then it must have been vacuumed which I think would have been difficult to organise to fit in with the 7.00 AM sightings.
Regards
Andrew

[Victor]

1. I don't consider the evidence concerning the cartridges to be 'very strong'. They were found weeks after the murder, and weeks after the gun and remaining cartridges were in police possession.

Hi Julie and Andrew,

The fact that the gun and remaining cartridges were in police possession so soon after the crime is what make the evidence so strong, consider the chronology:-

Aug 22 - Hold-up, leading to rape and murder the following morning.
Aug 24 - Gun and cartridge cases found on bus.
Sep 11 - Cartridge cases found in Vienna.
Sep 15 - Nudds first statement.

Therefore the cartridge cases must have been in the room before Hanratty or "J Ryan" was connected with the crime, which is pretty prescient of anyone trying to frame him!

2. Valerie's identification of Hanratty was made mainly on the basis of his dialect (be quiet will you, I'm finking'). This was after she visually examined the men on parade for twenty minutes. Given that the parade was local, and Hanratty was very likely the only true Londoner among the line-up, and given that the original description of the killer resulted in a line-up of men who resembled Alphon, not Hanratty, it is safe to conlcude that Valerie's identification is open to question but I believe she believed she had picked the right man supported as she was by Acott.

Some of this I can accept. Woffinden says the 12 other men on the parade were "from local RAF stations at Halton and High Wycombe" not local people, and were "men whose natural hair-colouring was gingerish" so absolutely nothing like Alphon. Woffinden traced 9 of the 12 in 1991 "most came from the Midlands, the north-east and Scotland; none came from London", which is a very underhand and sneaky way of implying that the 3 people he didn't trace weren't cockneys, when there's no way of being sure.

There's also the issue of the skull caps, Woffinden implies that Acott requested them to make the parade fairer for Hanratty, but I think Acott requested them as a contingency in case Hanratty or Kleinman objected, and as neither did the caps weren't necessary.

3. The semen stain was blood-typed as being a O secretor - a common blood type.

That's true about a third of men are O secretors, including Hanratty and Alphon, but tellingly not Gregsten, so it must be the rapists' semen. And there's no reason for it to mysteriously vanish.

4. Were Anderson and Ewer acquainted? I think there is a strong possibility that they were and I will return to this. Of course, Ewer would deny the association because Anderson was strongly suspected of receiving stolen goods and why would Ewer want to be associated with someone like that?

I think that's a very poor reason for Ewer to deny the association especially as Anderson wasn't charged with any crime.

5. Was the car cleaned before it was dumped? Well, it could have been, but who cleaned it? A killer would probably have cleaned, or attempted to clean, the blood up rather than risk being found driving a car splattered with blood. But someone who needed the blood to be there but nothing much else could certainly have cleaned it.

I think Andrew's point about vacuum cleaning is the only realistic but unfeasible method.

And finally, a quote for James... Woffinden page 432 - "Audrey Willis told me that the man who accosted her was not Alphon." that sounds categorical to me.

KR,
Vic.

[Limehouse]

Hi Victor,

Regarding the statement of Nudds, if he told me December 24 was Christmas Eve, I wouldn't believe him. If the evidence linking Hanratty to the catridges and therefore the murder relies on Nudd's statement - any of his three statements - then that is poor evidence.

Fair points about the line-up - we seem to agree it was not wholly fair to Hanratty.

Re the possible association between Ewer and Anderson. Ewer claims he thinks he didn't know her but as they are both in the antiques business, he is not surprised if 'she knows him'. Anderson states she definitely knew him before the murder. Now, normally, I would not trust Anderson's word - but only in that I believe she embroidered her evidence to put Hanratty in a bad light because she was under pressure to deliver because she was 'escused' prosecution for having stolen goods in her home/business. She had nothing to lose from claiming association with Ewer whereas he would not want to claim association with someone whose honesty was questionable (and also if he was connected to the crime in someway and ASnderson was a common link).

Was the car vacuumed before being dumped? Well, it's possible but forensic evidence could include semen (which was easy to identify, visible or invisible), other human fluids, fibres, finger prints, skin cells etc and these are very difficult to remove completely. I can only conclude that the forensic team did a less than perfect job or someone did not want evidence of the killer found.

[Victor]

Regarding the statement of Nudds, if he told me December 24 was Christmas Eve, I wouldn't believe him. If the evidence linking Hanratty to the catridges and therefore the murder relies on Nudd's statement - any of his three statements - then that is poor evidence.

Hi Julie,

I agree, ideally I'd want a source other than Nudds, and fortunately there is, the Vienna books, which Hanratty himself signed "J Ryan", so that evidence is sound. I only included the Nudds statement in the chronology as that is the first time that any connection to Hanratty is made, therefore the point stands... Anyone framing Hanratty by placing the cartridge cases in the Vienna must know he was there, and the only people who knew he was there at that time were the France family. The Police who had the gun and spare cartridges certainly did not.

Fair points about the line-up - we seem to agree it was not wholly fair to Hanratty.

Not absolutely fair, but as fair as was reasonably possible.

I can only conclude that the forensic team did a less than perfect job or someone did not want evidence of the killer found.

Or the car was contaminated before the forensic team got to it, leaving nothing useful for them to find.

KR,
Vic.

[Graham]

Hi Julie,

I can only conclude that the forensic team did a less than perfect job or someone did not want evidence of the killer found

The lack of forensics in the car has been commented on many times - was there genuinely no forensic evidence available (which would indicate a pretty thorough valeting job) or was there so little that the police considered it insignificant? (Obviously there was blood in the front of the car). I've always found it odd that neither the defence nor the prosecution asked questions about the car's forensics (or lack of them).

Re: underlined bit above, if that was the case, then someone must have made a pretty rapid decision. What possible scenario could you suggest for the police purposely destroying or concealing forensic evidence at such an early stage in the investigation?

Cheers,

Graham

[Limehouse]

Hi Graham,

I too am astonished that, particulalry the defence, did not persue the issue of the lack of forensics in the car.

At that early stage, if any forensic evidence was 'cleaned up', I don't think it would have been police that did so. It is much more likely to have been someone who wanted to ensure, as far as possible, that forensic evidence was not found. This could have been the killer or someone trying to conceal the killer's identity. It is only when looked at alongside other 'evidence' that the lack of forensics seem significant. However, it seems that whoever abandoned the car was prepared to risk being caught in a car splattered with MG's blood. Did the killer really drive round for nearly four hours in that car?

Vic - concerning the cartridges, if we discount Nudd's statement, the remaining evidence you identify - that of 'J Ryan's' signature in the book - is still very weak evidence since it cannot be established that the cartridges date from that signature.