a6 murder

[Victor]

IN36. On 11 September 1961 (some twenty days after the killing), two cartridge cases were found in room 24 at the Vienna Hotel, Sutherland Avenue, Maida Vale; it was later established scientifically that they had been fired from the murder weapon.

http://www.denverda.org/DNA_Documents/Hanratty.PDF

So – who is having trouble grasping things Ron??

Now - once again – I post my previous conclusions concerning the cartridge cases:

Hi Julie,

Are you going to reply to my comments regarding your repeated posting?

KR,
Vic.

[Victor]

What I am saying is the hanky was not examined for any forensic evidence in 1961.Fact

Hi Norma,

Is that a fact? Where did you get it from?

The judgment says:-
As far as the handkerchief is concerned, it will be remembered that when first examined it was considered to be of no scientific interest. No blood or semen was detected.

If no blood or semen was detected then surely it was looked for.

This hanky panky hanky was kept for forty odd years in a drawer at Bedford police station.Hmmmn---perfect laboratory conditions to ensure lack of contamination you would all agree.

No, not perfect lab conditions, but happily it was protected from light and bacteria and enzymes, so no reason for the DNA to have degraded - I refer you to the Forensic Institute document regard degredation of DNA.

KR,
Vic.

[Graham]

Hi All,

The other major point that seems to have escaped recent posts, especially Norma's, is that Mr Nudds evidence has little bearing on Hanratty being the killer, however, he's the major contributor to the Alphon case, without him the case against Alphon is a non-starter.

Exactly, Vic. I don't think Sherrard was all that concerned about anything Nudds had to say, but would have been had he been defending Alphon. Nudds is a minor player in this.

Re: the DNA, I've never got involved in this debate because I am not qualified to do so. If a forensic biologist, fully qualified and competent in DNA analysis, came onto this thread and stated that there is a possibility the results in Hanratty's case are questionable, then I'd listen.

Re: sock-puppets, yes, there is a distinct odour of at least one on this thread at the moment, as I've said before. I wonder if it's possible to get Admin to run a check?

Graham

[Victor]

Re. your second point it might surprise you to know that there are just 4 posts of Norma's wherein she identified Langdale as Langland. On the other hand there are 21 posts of hers in which she correctly spells his name, in other words 84% of the time.

Hi James,

Lies, damn lies and statistics...

I seriously doubt there are only 4 posts where Norma makes that mistake, and of course I repeatedly pointed out the error which is why it was corrected.

Anyone with any intelligence would know who she meant by Langland anyhow.

In other words, we have to re-interpret or translate Norma's posts to correct them, and we should really know what she means to say instead of accepting what she writes!

I accept that we know who she is referring to when she says Langland, and that it is a simple trivial error, but it is one that is easily rectified.

It does remind me of the John "Mary" Kerr incident.

KR,
Vic.

[Victor]

regarding the question of how DNA can disappear I am posting some links for you to study.The LCNDNA tests that were used on the 40 year piece of cloth have now been banned for use in Courts of Appeal throughout many American States.The method has been rejected because it is subject to so much
error
.http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0608182541.htm

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/in...7124555AAFg8aZ

Hi Norma,

Those links go to information on how bacteria can degrade DNA, they have no information whatsoever on how DNA can naturally degrade nor that LCN testing is banned in the States. Have you got a link that does refer to this because even Budowle accepts that LCN has investigatory uses.

KR,
Vic.

[Victor]

I am neither 'monumentally stupid' - 'unable to grasp things' - 'illogical' or a 'flat earther' - all of which have been aimed at me in recent days. Like Norma - I would like this excellent thread to get back on a civil and thought-provoking footing. Both camps are guilty of bringing the thread down and both camps need to reflect and think on.

Hi Julie,

I quite clearly said "borders on" and my motive for doing so was that it is easy to accuse anyone on the boards of being a sock-suppet of anyone else, but there's only one person who regularly posted to this thread and has been banned from the boards for doing so. The admin team are able to check the IP addresses of users and will happily tell you that Ron and myself are different users, I'm not so sure they can say the same about Reg - Steve S - Clive English - Derrick and uncle_adolph.

I could respond to the lovely Mastermind parady he posted - I was thinking along the lines of "Who's the A6 murderer? Peter Alphon - Wrong - But it was - No it wasn't - Yes it was - He's behind you"

The other major point that seems to have escaped recent posts, especially Norma's, is that Mr Nudds evidence has little bearing on Hanratty being the killer, however, he's the major contributor to the Alphon case, without him the case against Alphon is a non-starter.

KR,
Vic.

[Natalie Severn]

Ron or Ronipstone,
Thanks for reading the link.
Quite frankly we do not know where that fragment of cloth had been that was kept in conditions that would now be considered unacceptable.
But I agree it would need one of the state of the art LCN DNA experts to give their opinion.
Best
Norma

[RonIpstone]

Ron or Ronipstone,
regarding the question of how DNA can disappear I am posting some links for you to study.The LCNDNA tests that were used on the 40 year piece of cloth have now been banned for use in Courts of Appeal throughout many American States.

Hello Norma or Natalie,

Well if the Hanratty defence team can get a suitably qualified expert to say it is a realistic possibility for the rapist's DNA, deposited as semen on the knickers' fragment, should deteriorate over a 40 year period so as to be undetectable, whereas other DNA deposited on the fragment should not so deteriorate, then you may have something. Unfortunately for your argument there is no expert opinion to substantiate it.


Ron

[babybird67]

You either accept evidence in one case pertaining to another and/or other cases or you don't. Make your mind up Jennifer or be called a hypocrite.

LOL!

Nice try.

I am not personally interested in the other case Norma posted about because it has NO BEARING whatsoever on the DNA results in the Hanratty case.

Witness testimony however does have a bearing and it is perfectly legitimate to comment on how in every case there is conflicting witness testimony and the necessity for evaluation of it.

My name is not Jennifer by the way. It's either Jen or bb, babybird, whatever, but i have never signed my posts Jennifer...just for your information. But you can call me whatever makes you happy...i think i am going to call you Rerrick.

[babybird67]

Really?
Where is the evidence it was Hanratty's hanky? He touched it at trial. His cells are on it.

HI Re...Derrick.

Hanratty said it was his. You believe everything else he says as if it was the gospel truth, why not that? His snot cells were on it. Are you seriously suggesting when asked to handle it at the trial he took it and blew his nose on it then? LOL!

You are relying on France to spot Hanratty in on the Bus. Again no evidence of Hanratty putting there.

Again, dear, i am relying on Hanratty's own admission that he used the back seats of bus to dispose of his unwanted STOLEN ILLEGAL goods. And the corroboration of his acquaintance France underlines that. Nobody had to see him. He told everyone that's where he left stuff. That's how thick he was.

Alibi? Mrs Dinwoodie bollocksed up the prosecution case to the extent that they suggested that Hanratty took an air service to Dorney!

Mrs Dinwoodie did not meet Hanrarry. She met someone with a Celtic (not London) accent who bought cigarettes from her (Hanratty did not smoke) and who asked for directions and had a whole conversation with her which Hanrarry himself couldn't corroborate, on a day in which Hanratty was with the France family. And I'm the idiot? LOL!

3 respectible citizens. Are you sure?

Yep totally sure thanks. None of them were criminals. That tends to get most people's respect, unless you're totally unethical and twist the morals and make criminals into Gods and victims into criminals. I don't inhabit that mad universe. Nor would I suggest do the majority of responsible and decent citizens.

One, Valerie, is practically blind without her glasses and made the visual id so important.

LOL! Great. Watch out literally blind people. You can be attacked with impunity. Criminals, heed Derrick's brilliant reasoning... just wear a mask or rape the blind and their testimony can be dismissed and you can literally get away with murder. Thank God you're not in charge of law and order in this country. FYI she was NOT practically blind. She wore glasses that's all. She not only identified her rapist by sight, but by sound, making her identification doubly sound in my mind. And what has her eyesight got to do with her respectability anyway? Are you suggesting short-sighted people must be criminals?

One, Mr Skillett, was so incensed over anothers bad driving, whereas Blackhall was more than likely calm.

Seriously? So incensed that constitutes a motive to finger someone for a murder and get them hanged? LOL! And you think people scratch around for a motive from Hanratty.

The other, Mr Trower, picked Hanratty out in less than 5 seconds when he probably didn't see the Moggie driver at all.

How the hell do you know what he saw and what he didnt see? You weren't there. The salient point is he picked him out. Along with two other people. THREE identifications of the same person. Count them. THREE.

Spent cases from the gun were found 19 days after Hanratty had stayed in the room. Not very convincing as even a doss house gets cleaned.

You're right it was a doss house and as such it wasn't properly cleaned for that long...no occupants you see. And in Re...Derrick land of law and order, any evidence not found after what....day two? must be suspect? HAHA!

The DNA is LCN and wasn't quantified. The FSS just picked out any peaks that matched alleles in the referential profiles available.

The DNA proved Hanratty did it. Defence and Hanratty's family have had to concede that. If the experts couldn't argue against it, don't expect me to accept any tainted argument from the biased keyboard you are typing from!

Noone can state exactly how any DNA was deposited by a DNA test alone. Anyone who believes this is an idiot.

The experts see distributions all the time. This was a distribution which proved sex had taken place. Flat earthers can't and won't accept that. Flat earthers want criminals to rape and murder scot free. Flat earthers believe what they want and you are the king of them. Your choice. Defend a rapist and murderer and sleep well with the conscience that does so. I am only glad that i don't have to.

[Natalie Severn]

Ron or Ronipstone,
regarding the question of how DNA can disappear I am posting some links for you to study.The LCNDNA tests that were used on the 40 year piece of cloth have now been banned for use in Courts of Appeal throughout many American States.The method has been rejected because it is subject to so much
error
.http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0608182541.htm

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080507124555AAFg8aZ

[RonIpstone]

We should never lose sight of the fact that it was the Hanratty team that instigated the recent scientific analysis.

I quote Bob Woffinden here

where he says:

"Finally, one must look at the scientific exhibits. In 1991, we asked the forensic science laboratories whether there were any surviving exhibits.

We were shown a small fragment of material from Valerie Storie's underwear and immediately asked whether it could be subjected to analysis using contemporary DNA techniques.

The Home Office originally refused this request, but the work, which is still in progress, was finally undertaken by the Criminal Cases Review Commission. It is a very small sample of material, and the work is very intricate.

However, I have no doubt that when the work has been properly concluded, these scientific tests, too, will demonstrate that he had nothing to do with this crime.

In fact the scientific tests have demonstrated that Alphon had nothing to do with it, as admitted by the Hanrattys' Counsel, and that no person other than Jim could have done it.

The Hanrattys appear to have had the benefit of two experts acting on their behalf neither of whom has criticised the testing procedures in the manner now sought to be done so on this forum by the several unqualified contributors who have ventured their half baked opinions.

[Derrick]

Thanks Derrick. It's all crystal clear to me now!! Science aside - the DNA evidence does not convince me because it cannot account for the doubts I had concerning the nature and integrity of the original 'evidence' presented at the trial. Thanks again for trying to clarify though

Julie
The fact that essentially the same test proved inconclusive one minute and determines Hantatty's guilt the next should sound alarm bells ringing to anyone who has a sensible bone in their body!

This excludes the fact that the evidential sample wasn't stored in an ideal fashion for nigh on 30 years.

I have seen FSS documents, in other cases, which would make your hair curl if you knew that innocent persons are being sentenced to long stretches in chokey based on evidence that is not much more than pig shite.

Defence attornies and juries will believe anything it seems.

Derrick

[Limehouse]

Hi Julie
It wasn't a different technique per se. The tests in 2004 used STR testing at 6 loci and is called SGM. The 1998 tests subverted the newly developed SGM+ (10 loci) by adding an additional 6 cycles (34 instead of 28) to the amplification step.
Derrick

Thanks Derrick. It's all crystal clear to me now!! Science aside - the DNA evidence does not convince me because it cannot account for the doubts I had concerning the nature and integrity of the original 'evidence' presented at the trial. Thanks again for trying to clarify though

[Derrick]

No. We're discussing the forensic evidence in the Hanratty case and how semen and a profile that was on the sample in the 1960s could possible have been totally eradicated when examined later in the century.

You will often find conflicting witness statements in cases. Look at Caroline Maxwell who swears she saw Mary Kelly on the morning after it is commonly accepted she was murdered. It doesn't reflect on witness integrity. One evaluates the witness testimony and makes a choice.

You either accept evidence in one case pertaining to another and/or other cases or you don't. Make your mind up Jennifer or be called a hypocrite.