a6 murder

[Graham]

Hang on a bit, guys. I questioned Andrew immediately after he made his first post, and this is his reply:

This old Police note book from 1961, Lots of very interesting reading, Included is the express Messages about the A6 murders near Clophill Beds, Wanted is James Hanratty for the murder of a man and woman found in the layby, Lookout for their Morris Minor 847BHN, 193 Pages in this book.
This is the seller’s précis of the notebook contents which appear to be police bulletins from 1961 with the latest information. I suppose he fluffed it because he doesn’t understand all the issues.

In other words, the above blurb was written by the seller, not by the police at the time. As Andrew suggests, the seller didn't understand all the issues.

Sorry to disappoint all you Jimisinnocent types, but there you are.

As an aside, I'd have thought that this notebook would have come under the 100 year rule regarding the disclosure of files relating to a crime; which prompts me to ask: how did the seller get hold of it?

Cheers,

Graham

[Victor]

Tell you what though mate if there is something within those documents that points in the favour of JH poor old Vic will have a fit.
The revealer of this new information will be branded the new Mrs Jones, master criminal, the very devil incarnate.

Hi Tony,

No idea why you think I'd have a fit, I wasn't jumping for joy when Stewart P Evans mentioned incriminating evidence found in JH's bedroom, and with his history and contacts the provenance is a lot less suspect than a notebook bought off ebay.

I've certainly never branded Grace Jones a master criminal either, just an unprosecuted petty one.

KR,
Vic.

[Victor]

i do find some of the terminology that i can understand to be rather dubious...

in paragraph 1 f'rinstace, the statement "in the light of current scientific knowledge and opinion" is meaningless, because it does not identify any individual or organization whose knowledge and opinion is being referenced.

Hi Larue,

I think the statement is quite clear and comprehensive, although I do agree that it doesn't specify anyone, although as a minimum I would intepret it to mean all of the relevent Royal Societies (Medicine, Chemistry, etc.), which if listed individually would cause the remit to be excessively long.

as for paragraph 2, that would be an international standard, would'nt it? and i rather doubt that current scientific opinion from anyone would be accepted

Nope, a standard devised by a UK group for UK courts, that only has jurisdiction over UK matters, but accepts international advice would be a national standard. I can see no reason why any relevant opinions wouldn't be incorporated, otherwise, what's the point of having it?

KR,
Vic.

[jimarilyn]

Hi Tony,
I've certainly never branded Grace Jones a master criminal either, just an unprosecuted petty one.

You seem to have a very short memory Victor, as the following extracts of yours bear out and leave the reader in no doubt as to your true feelings concerning the homely Mrs Grace Jones...................

Really, what about Grace Jones attempt to manipulate Terry Jones? Defence witnesses manipulating eachother.

Yes, she was not prosecuted for handling stolen goods, but neither was Grace Jones for tax evasion! However, I do think that she was offered some sort of immunity in return for giving evidence, but that's a long way from accusing her of perjury.

I agree with Graham, without the Rhyl alibi there's no Grace Jones (master criminal, bond girl, molestor of chat show hosts and due to appear at Devil's Dyke Festival this year) and the associated fiasco.

Are you trying to say that they didn't conspire? She was told off by the judge! And then their accounts of the conversation were different, so one of them was definitely lying.

It's particularly relevent when you consider that Evans was supposed to have got the newspaper seller (Charlie Jones??) to give false testimony, it looks like he was trying to get Grace Jones to do the same. A very suspect set of circumstances.

What about the travesty that is Olive Dinwoodie's identification of Hanratty?
Or Grace Jones illegally colluding with Terry Evans?

And who, other than Grace Jones, have I branded "dishonest, tax-dodging, publicity seeking criminals"?

Hi Tony,
I am sorry, I can understand your feelings, but I have not said anything that is incorrect. She was breaking the law by not declaring all of her income, and it is criminals like that, which incidentally includes Al Capone - he was only convicted of tax offenses, that increase your and my taxes.

[Victor]

You seem to have a very short memory Victor, as the following extracts of yours bear out and leave the reader in no doubt as to your true feelings concerning the homely Mrs Grace Jones...................

Hi James,

The only quote that mentions "master criminal" also says "bond girl, molestor of chat show hosts and due to appear at Devil's Dyke Festival this year" which would be the celebrity rather than the Welsh one! So I repeat, I've never called stated that Grace Jones, who gave evidence in the Hanratty trial, is a master criminal, just an unprosecuted petty one.

And what about the rest of the post used in your last quote...

I completely agree, she was a small-time crook.

No, she broke the rules, she didn't just bend them.

I can't avoid saying this..."If she jumped off a cliff, would you follow?"

Yes her crime was not great or partricularly significant, but it is still a crime.

...because it is the law of this land, it might not be as significant as murder or rape, but it serves to put more police on the streets, pay for the NHS, local services, &tc.

I understand that this is sounding very harsh for such a minor offense, but it is her fault that we have no physical evidence either way.

I cannot help the negative stigma that you infer from my factual statement. To some extent I agree with you, she did not commit a major crime, but she did commit a crime.

There's a lot of public disquiet that Al Capone was ONLY tried for tax evasion, rather than his other activities.

KR,
Vic.

[SteveS]

Hello Victor

I think the statement is quite clear and comprehensive, although I do agree that it doesn't specify anyone, although as a minimum I would intepret it to mean all of the relevent Royal Societies (Medicine, Chemistry, etc.), which if listed individually would cause the remit to be excessively long.

Clear as mud you mean; yet your interpretation is just that, yours, and it's biased.

Nope, a standard devised by a UK group for UK courts, that only has jurisdiction over UK matters, but accepts international advice would be a national standard. I can see no reason why any relevant opinions wouldn't be incorporated, otherwise, what's the point of having it?

My thoughts entirely, why have a review when no other opinion other than that of the servers and clients are properly sought. Jamieson is quite correct to state that no critical peer opinion was incorporated into the review. Jamieson was also correct to point out that this was against Home Office dictats over protecting clients from poor service providers.

Section 12 of the Caddy Review reads thus:

12. Acknowledgements

The authors of the review would wish to acknowledge the help and full cooperation of the following organisations and personnel without which this review could not have been written:

The Forensic Science Service Ltd
Orchid Cellmark Ltd
LGC Forensics
Harperley Hall Training Centre, NPIA, Mr Keith Fryer and Mr Duncan Brown
Gary Pugh of the Metropolitan Police
The Metropolitan Police Focus Group
United Kingdom Accreditation Service, Dr Jane Beaumont
Custodian of the NDNAD, Dr Michael Prior
Greater Manchester, Hampshire, Lincolnshire and West Yorkshire Police Forces
The Dutch National Forensic Science Laboratory.

Where are the Royal Societies, relevant outside opinion and dissenting voices mentioned here eh?

In fact among the Reviews recommendations are the following:

10. For all LTDNA samples and taking into account the limitations of the amount of DNA extracted from crime samples, quantification of the material extracted for analysis must be undertaken. Satisfactory commercial kits are now available for this purpose. Further research is required into the best ways of quantifying very small samples of DNA such as using repetitive DNA target. The Forensic Science Regulator must insist that as a matter of best practice a DNA quantification step is implemented for all DNA analyses submitted to the CJS and should monitor its implementation.

Not done in Hanratty. In fact it was more than a year after the review that the FSS started to routinely quantify LCN template. This was 10 years after Hanratty!

11. There needs to be a national agreement on how LTDNA profiles are to be interpreted especially in relation to "allele drop in and out", stochastic effects, inhibition, and mixtures. This should be aided by regular circulation of appropriate test profiles and interpretation by ALL providers of this service and any results should be coordinated through the forensic science regulator. The Forensic Science Regulator should develop a consensus from all the forensic science providers in consultation with all stakeholders on how profiles and mixed profiles are to be interpreted. Once these criteria/standards have been agreed then the regulator should monitor their implementation. The Forensic Science Regulator should encourage openness in the availability of information that may have an impact on the way DNA profiles are interpreted in the context of a case.

As any twit can plainly see that 9 years after Hanratty there is still no agreed way of interpreting LCN profiles.
Further; no other opinion other than servers and clients will be required to agree this. A closed shop I think it is called.
Finally here the FSS and other servers are only being encouraged to divulge information but will not be compelled to do so.

13. Appropriate caveats should be stated in witness statements/court reports, in most instances, when LTDNA analyses have been undertaken.

Not one caveat was given by the prosecution in Hanratty.

[Victor]

Jamieson is quite correct to state that no critical peer opinion was incorporated into the review. Jamieson was also correct to point out that this was against Home Office dictats over protecting clients from poor service providers.

Hi Steve,

Jamieson has since withdrawn those comments. See the Reed Garmson link you posted and I quoted last week.

KR,
Vic.

[SteveS]

Hello Victor

Jamieson has since withdrawn those comments. See the Reed Garmson link you posted and I quoted last week.

And what would those comments be exactly?

It wouldn't be these comments from paragraph 108 of R v Reed/Reed/Garmson would it?

...The fact that Professor Jamieson, in the light of all the material he has now seen, no longer calls into question the validity of the process where the quantity is above the stochastic threshold, provides considerable mitigation for statements that in our view should never have been made and which, we were told, have now been withdrawn.

So that has nothing to do with the comments I mentioned in my post #5121 and which I understand Jamieson still attests to as it still appears on the FI's own website @ http://www.theforensicinstitute.com/...l/PressLCN.htm

and the Barrister article is still available here @ http://www.barristermagazine.com/art.../Jamieson.html

So these statements have hardly been withdrawn have they?

The judges may not like what Jamieson said about the Caddy Review but that is thier problem and the judges opinion does not in my view hold much water when more closely scrutinized as I did in post#5121.

Justice has long been a case of "He who pays the piper calls the tune". It isn't going to get a whole lot better from here on in either. If you don't agree then look at this from December 2009.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8400097.stm

The FSS is in such financial dire straits that it's future is in serious doubt.

Those called on to give expert forensic testimony will be those who can deliver what the client wants. As the vast majority of resources are held by the Crown the outlook for the poor sucker in the street looks worse than ever. More miscarriages of justice, more misery, more expense.

[SteveS]

You seem to have a very short memory Victor, as the following extracts of yours bear out and leave the reader in no doubt as to your true feelings concerning the homely Mrs Grace Jones...................

Hi Jim
Blimey mate I think you may have touched a nerve with the great upholder of law and order in this country that is Victor (self appointed, by the way). I should start a new award and make Victor the first recipient...The Matthew Hopkins Award. What do you think?

He did take the bait you laid with such avarice that one wonders whether he is in complete control of his faculties. You never mentioned the phrase "Master Criminal" as I can see. He does get a tad carried away it would seem.

Even so it shows that even the most level headed people, as Victor purports to be, can make mistakes over identification as Victor has done. He was obviously confused between a Rhyl guesthouse owner (white, middle-aged and greying) and a popular Jamaican singer (Black, tall and lithe). I would love to see the identikit picture for this one. Probably arguments over the eye colour would go on for years.

Still I bet he continues to attest that Storie couldn't have made such a stupid mistake. What do you think?

[Tony]

Hi Jim
Blimey mate I think you may have touched a nerve with the great upholder of law and order in this country that is Victor (self appointed, by the way). I should start a new award and make Victor the first recipient...The Matthew Hopkins Award. What do you think?

He did take the bait you laid with such avarice that one wonders whether he is in complete control of his faculties. You never mentioned the phrase "Master Criminal" as I can see. He does get a tad carried away it would seem.

Even so it shows that even the most level headed people, as Victor purports to be, can make mistakes over identification as Victor has done. He was obviously confused between a Rhyl guesthouse owner (white, middle-aged and greying) and a popular Jamaican singer (Black, tall and lithe). I would love to see the identikit picture for this one. Probably arguments over the eye colour would go on for years.

Still I bet he continues to attest that Storie couldn't have made such a stupid mistake. What do you think?

Now come on Steve,

We can have no more of that sort of talk.

Personally I think it is quite an easy mistake to mix up the 2 Grace Jones’. For one thing they have both got the same name. It’s a bit like mixing up 2 different blokes who have the same name; Jim for instance.

No Vic is quite correct and identification is a little bit unreliable at best. In fact I suffer from it myself; I sometimes mix up Audley Harrison and Audrey Roberts, both very good actors in their own right.

But it only happens on Coronation Street when I get mixed up because I must admit I have never seen Audrey in the boxing ring. There again she might have put up a better fight than Audrey. Sorry I mean Audley; see how easy it is?

Tony.

Going now Corrie’s starting.

[Victor]

He was obviously confused between a Rhyl guesthouse owner (white, middle-aged and greying) and a popular Jamaican singer (Black, tall and lithe).

Hi Steve,

Try white and dead. It seems like your the one who is confused.

KR,
Vic.

[jimarilyn]

A bit off topic but.........

But it only happens on Coronation Street when I get mixed up because I must admit I have never seen Audrey in the boxing ring. There again she might have put up a better fight than Audrey. Sorry I mean Audley; see how easy it is?

Did Mr Harrison ever end up in a casualty ward after any of his fights Tony ?
If so did he become a hospital Audley ?

Your'e good at quizzes I hear Tony. Do you happen to know which is the filthest canal in the world ? I ask this in light of an excellent Polish film I've just finished watching.

[SteveS]

Your'e good at quizzes I hear Tony. Do you happen to know which is the filthest canal in the world ? I ask this in light of an excellent Polish film I've just finished watching.

That would be alimentary (canal) my dear Jim.

[jimarilyn]

That would be alimentary (canal) my dear Jim.

Nice swan Steve, I like it. ! I was thinking of the Sewers Canal though, Holmes old chap.

[SteveS]

Nice swan Steve, I like it. ! I was thinking of the Sewers Canal though, Holmes.

Ca(r)nal knowledge on the whole is supposed to be very dirty, Moriarty my dear fellow.