a6 murder

[Victor]

There is no problem with my theory at all Victor.

There isn't if you keep moving the goalposts.

You are rolling out the same old disproved argument that someone can be ruled out of an LCN profile, that you have been using from the start of the argument on here.

The argument has never been disproved unless you want to accept that drop-ins and drop-outs occur frequently enough to shift a profile, and these random and unpredictable effects repeatedly occur identically in all samples.

Theoretically a peak could drop-out, and a different peak drop-in morphing a profile into another, but this is so extremely unlikely to reproducibly happen in all runs, that you can effectively discount it. For it to happen at more than one site has never been observed and published.

Whittaker, once he has a reference profile to work with (eg Mary or Michael) will just try and fit what he can and explain the rest away as drop-in or drop-out and call ludicrous odds against it not being someone else's relative.

But Whittaker accepts that you can rule out someone using LCN, and it is a fact that the profile of Mary contributes only 50% to Michael's and James', and the other 50% comes from James (Sr.). Michael and James could be completely different, but that is unlikely.

If Whittaker got a peak that corresponded to Michael and/or Mary, and found it absent from James when he was eventually exhumed, then Whittaker would report that as a mismatch, and declare James innocent, just like he did with Alphon.

Whittaker and LCN's co-developer Dr Peter Gill know for certain that they could have made just about anybody guilty of the A6 murder, when they have a reference profile to work to.

Only if you accept that they would fiddle their results, i.e. fit someone up, i.e. lie in court and perjure themselves.

Returning to this case. It was another 4 years before the Hanratty appeal was actually heard at the CACD in April 2002. So what were the CPS and the FSS doing during this extraordinarily long period of time, if, as they contend, they had a cast iron profile of Hanratty and Hanratty alone? They were obviously scratching around for additional evidence against Hanratty which doesn't exist and thinking of what to do in the absence of such.

The moon landings were faked, the Earth is flat, and JFK, &tc. The man had been dead for 30 years, what difference did it make?

So the Home Office had to sanction the exhumation of Hanratty to allow the FSS to do another fiddle of the interpretation at the last minute. To give it some effect in the public's mind, in advance of the actual appeal hearing, this was leaked to the Sun and The Mail who both proclaimed the result of Hanratty's guilt by DNA evidence as official. It would be interesting to know who leaked the story and whether any money changed hands.

Of course Hanratty had to be exhumed to give the concrete profile, profiles of Mary and Michael couldn't eliminate James because they would contain peaks that wouldn't be in James' profile. 4 years for civil servants to get their act in order and sanction the exhumation sounds incredibly rapid for the civil service... Speaking as an ex-civil servant.

The FSS's report, which was all the defence saw in Hanratty in 2002, is no good in these cases anyway. One needs the EPG's produced from each run along with the analyst's bench notes and an independent set of tests to validate and corroborate. This is what Jamieson and Krane did in Hoey. Independent tests can now not be done for the obvious reason of lack of evidence yet the EPG's and notes are what Woffinden is raising funds to acquire and have reexamined.

Something I agree with at last. Yes the EPG's would be essential to mount a credible defence. Are you stating that Bindman and/or his experts did not have access to these?

KR,
Vic.

[Victor]

You, Victor, Graham, RonIpstone, BabyBird67 and several others have all convinced yourselves that LCN DNA is 100% reliable and cannot be argued against as being anything but. This is for one reason and one reason only; someone else has told you so.

What a futile argument. You, Steve, have convinced yourself that LCN DNA is innaccurate for one reason and one reason only:- Someone else has told you so.

You repeat minority scientific viewpoints ad nausium and state them in such a manner as to suggest they are proven. And when rational argument fails you resort to attacking people, eg. your recent tirade at Caz because she has an interest in Jack the Ripper and is a Premium member of this site.

You believe this because otherwise Hanratty is indisputably guilty. All rational and plausible arguments have failed, so you resort to accusing the victim of deliberately falsifying her testimony, and the scientists of falsifying their results, without any corroborating evidence.

KR,
Vic.

[caz]

Certainly, it appears that Hanratty's DNA is present on the portion of VS's underwear that was tested in 2002. But does that prove Hanratty was at the crime scene? No other forensic evidence found at the crime scene links Hanratty to the crime. If Hanratty's DNA had been deposited on the portion of underwear through contamination, the real killer's DNA could be missing because:

- it was never desposited on the underwear in the first place (VS took her knickers off
- it was on the portion of underwear that was not tested...

...Did the nurses or doctors take a vaginal swab and retain this for testing? That would have been much more reliable than a portion of underwear stored for decades lord-knows how. Even if you argue that the items were stored separately for all those years, it does not rule out contamination during the trial when items were placed on a bench in close proximity...

...And by the way, science is often 'controlled' by businesses who have particular agendas.

I'm sorry, Limehouse, but none of this really bears scrutiny, and I thought you would have known that already.

We know the rapist's DNA was deposited on the underwear in the first place, unless you are seriously suggesting that Valerie willingly had two sexual partners before being raped by a third that night. Two separate blood-typed semen stains were present, and you cannot seriously be suggesting that they incompetently destroyed the portion with the rapist's O group semen on it and managed to retain only a portion with none at all, conveniently contaminated with Hanratty's O group DNA. Or was this one of a growing number of independent conspiracies to get this individual arrested, charged, convicted, hanged and never cleared of a crime that everyone in the various chains knew he hadn't committed?

Maybe it's me getting muddled, but I could have sworn that the semen-stained underwear, which produced profiles matching Valerie (from her vaginal fluid) and Hanratty (from the O group semen) forty years later, was not among the trial exhibits, and was therefore never at risk from potential contamination during the trial itself.

You have to show how - and when - the science in this case would have been 'controlled' and whose businesses had the agenda. This is a serious allegation to make if you are just guessing on the basis that such things have happened before and will happen again.

Remember too that Barry George was released because the DNA evidence proved unsound.
And in 1962 the "cross contamination "of under garments and Hanratty"s handkerchief ,both before and during his trial would have been more than likely---something that would be very unlikely today.

Hi Nats,

I thought it was the gun residue evidence that proved unsound in Barry George's case. I didn't realise he was ever connected to the crime via DNA, although I'm happy to be corrected on that score.

Regarding the hanky and underwear in the A6 case, it was found to be a good deal less than likely that the matching DNA on the items - matching Hanratty's exhumed body - could have been transferred from one to the other, and certainly not during the trial if the latter was not an exhibit (see my responses to Limehouse for more info).

We know that serious miscarriages of justice can and do happen, Nats. That is not the issue here at all. We know that people, acting individually or as a group, can be thoroughly incompetent or thoroughly dishonest too, but that's no argument, on its own, for every case that goes to appeal being cocked up or crooked. So why automatically compare Barry George and Colin Stagg with James Hanratty? Why not compare Stagg and George with Alphon, and Robert Napper and the real killer of Jill Dando (whoever that was) with Hanratty?

The truth came out in the end with your two examples, didn't it? So why not in the A6 case too?

Love,

Caz
X

[RonIpstone]

What a futile argument. You, Steve, have convinced yourself that LCN DNA is innaccurate for one reason and one reason only:- Someone else has told you so.

Quite so.

I have formed my own considered judgment on the A6 Murder on what was said in the Court of Criminal Appeal, not only by the Crown, but also by the defence/appellant. It was not argued on behalf of Hanratty that there was no DNA of the rapist/murderer on the knickers fragment. It was conceded that Hanratty's DNA was present. It was further said on behalf of the Defence that the DNA tests ruled out Alphon. The argument was that Hanratty's DNA was there as a contaminant, to which the prosecution agreed that the possibility of contamination was real but remote. But if Hanratty's DNA was there as a contaminant which the defence accepts, then what had happened to the rapist/murderer's DNA which could not be detected, whereas Gregsten's, Storie's and Hanratty's could?

An English trial is a contest between two opposing views; in this case, Jim did it and Jim did not do it. Anyone judging such a trial, be he a dim Bedfordshire juryman, an appellate judge or a contributor to this forum, has to chose between the two contesting views. He must assume that the prosecution has put forward the best case for the Crown and that the defence has done likewise on behalf of the accused/appellant. The theories which are now being advanced on this forum on behalf of Jim were never subscribed to by those professional men charged with clearing Jim's name.

I assume, although I stand to be corrected here, that the professionals acting for Jim and his family had the necessary professional qualifications to make the decisions that they did. Can the same be said of those writing on this forum who take a contrary stance?

Let us remind ourselves what was said on behalf of Jim: (1) that his DNA was present;(2) that it was there as a contaminant and not left by Hanratty as the perpetrator of the crime;(3) that the DNA tests excluded Alphon.

I confess to being puzzled as to how Alphon could be excluded on DNA evidence by Hanratty's 'team' and yet they could argue that Jim was not the killer but some other unknown person, whose DNA was not detected, was. Surely Alphon would have fallen into the category of an unknown person whose DNA was not detected?

So there we are. The Court of Appeal has upheld the conviction and all right thinking people now subscribe to the view that Jim did it. I admit that in the absence of the DNA evidence I would think that Jim deserved to be acquitted, but Jim (by his brother) and his team did nothing to cast into doubt the DNA evidence and upon that I make my considered judgment.

[Natalie Severn]

Caz,
The possibility of cross -contamination in the 1960"s was very real indeed .The type of free handling of clothing fibres by police and others ,including the passing around of various items of clothing by those involved, for inspection etc was something that would never be allowed today.
Perhaps it wasnt "DNA" to be exact in the case of Barry George, but it was important forensic/scientific evidence that originally secured the conviction of Barry George.Moreover it is actually quite apposite because while it was precisely the "microscopic particle of gunshot residue" found in his pocket that was crucial to bring about his conviction in the first place, it was eventually successfully argued by his defence that the gunshot could easily have got there upon his arrest by "armed officers" or could even have happened when George"s jacket was placed on a mannequin to be photographed.So it clearly demonstrates how easily "cross contamination can happen.
My only reason for citing Colin Stagg was that he was very clearly being "set up" by the "disguised " policewoman for the murder ,which was why the judge twigged and threw the case out in total disgust!
Here again it demonstrates that even as recently as the late 1990"s a man totally innocent of the crime [for which Robert Napper is now serving a life sentence] but who police -at the time -were convinced was the murderer , had attempted to frame him or "set him up"---and Stagg could have now been serving a life sentence instead of Robert Napper----and in 1962 he could have been hanged for a crime he did not commit.
In fact,it could be argued that had the wrong man not been so determinedly sought by police,however well intentioned they were in this case, the right man might have been caught earlier and Samantha Bisset and her four year old daughter who were killed later ,would still be alive,
Best
Norma

[SteveS]

I assume, although I stand to be corrected here, that the professionals acting for Jim and his family had the necessary professional qualifications to make the decisions that they did. Can the same be said of those writing on this forum who take a contrary stance?

So:

• I have no qualifications whatsoever, nay GCSE's, nothing! So am walid from the defence classes.
• I take a contrary stance to the prosecuting classes.

Therefore, according to Ron I have no right arguing my point here.

Oh Dear!

Welcome to the Fourth Reich under Fuhrer Ron. Ron has acheived world domination of the A6 Murder quicker than Nick Griffin has been elected an MP.

Seig Heil Ron.

Your'e welcome to this forum if it means that much to you.

You can then discuss the Mein Kampf of the Reich, written by the Reichsphilosopher Leonard Miller and the Fourth Reichs constitution, that is Regina V Hanratty [2002] EWCA Crim 1141, with Victor, Caz, Graham, BabyBird67, et al.

You will have shite loads of fun together trying to find a motive for why Hanratty actually did do the A6 murder.

You can also spend endless hours dissecting every last fart made by the Rhyl alibi witnesses.

Much valuable knowledge will be learned from lectures on genetics and DNA from the Reiichsscientist Victor (he is just a lowly batchelor chemist but any position can be acheived in Ron's Brave New World).

The Minister of Truth, Caz, will propogate the great truth of citizen Alphon's struggle to be truly exonerated as a candidate for the A6 murdership. It is a long and hard battle against adversity that would bring tears to even the hardest of hearts.

You can even name your own holidays after the great Reichshero's of the case like Acott, Oxford, Nudds, Anderson and Langdale among others.

I would imagine that on most of these holy days the citizens can tell lies to all and sundry and keep their fingers crossed. The sixpence in the pudding will more than likely signal another poor non-citizen being fitted up and sentenced to death.

Beam me up Scotty.

[SteveS]

Perhaps it wasnt "DNA" to be exact in the case of Barry George, but it was important forensic/scientific evidence that originally secured the conviction of Barry George.Moreover it is actually quite apposite because while it was precisely the "microscopic particle of gunshot residue" found in his pocket that was crucial to bring about his conviction in the first place, it was eventually successfully argued by his defence that the gunshot could easily have got there upon his arrest by "armed officers" or could even have happened when George"s jacket was placed on a mannequin to be photographed.So it clearly demonstrates how easily "cross contamination can happen.

Hi Norma

Best post on here for quite some time. Your analytical approach is a bloody breath of fresh air!

[Limehouse]

Caz,
The possibility of cross -contamination in the 1960"s was very real indeed .The type of free handling of clothing fibres by police and others ,including the passing around of various items of clothing by those involved, for inspection etc was something that would never be allowed today.
Perhaps it wasnt "DNA" to be exact in the case of Barry George, but it was important forensic/scientific evidence that originally secured the conviction of Barry George.Moreover it is actually quite apposite because while it was precisely the "microscopic particle of gunshot residue" found in his pocket that was crucial to bring about his conviction in the first place, it was eventually successfully argued by his defence that the gunshot could easily have got there upon his arrest by "armed officers" or could even have happened when George"s jacket was placed on a mannequin to be photographed.So it clearly demonstrates how easily "cross contamination can happen.
My only reason for citing Colin Stagg was that he was very clearly being "set up" by the "disguised " policewoman for the murder ,which was why the judge twigged and threw the case out in total disgust!
Here again it demonstrates that even as recently as the late 1990"s a man totally innocent of the crime [for which Robert Napper is now serving a life sentence] but who police -at the time -were convinced was the murderer , had attempted to frame him or "set him up"---and Stagg could have now been serving a life sentence instead of Robert Napper----and in 1962 he could have been hanged for a crime he did not commit.
In fact,it could be argued that had the wrong man not been so determinedly sought by police,however well intentioned they were in this case, the right man might have been caught earlier and Samantha Bisset and her four year old daughter who were killed later ,would still be alive,
Best
Norma

All Excellent points Norma. And do you notice any similarities between the attitude towards Barry George and attitudes towards the 'type of person' speculated to be JtR? Time and time again vulnerable. lonely men have been targeted, arrested and served time because they were 'different' and therefore must have been 'nutters'. Often, as you have described, confessions were obtained after many hours of questioning and an innocent man imprisoned for many years.

[Natalie Severn]

Thanks Julie and Steve,
We are off on holiday tomorrow but when I get back on 7th June -or soon after,I look forward to discussing this contentious case some more.
Like Julie,I fear the cases of Barry George and Colin Stagg demonstrate how easily a miscarriage of justice can occur-or be in the process of happening ,as was the case with Stagg , especially when the person is already considered to be some sort of "oddball".
I will have to bone up on the Hanratty case a bit more.
Cheers
Norma

[Limehouse]

Have a good holiday Norma. And welcome to the A6 thread! I am certain you will make a terrific contribution.

[P.L.A]

The George case is yet a further example of where the courts have shown they are willing to admit mistakes have been made. The more of these cases we see, the harder it is to understand why there should be bias against Hanratty.

Does anyone have a tenable theory as to what is so different about the A6 case that causes the Establishment to want to uphold his conviction if they know him to be innocent?

To my mind, citing cases where convictions have been quashed does not support the Jim is innocent claim – quite the contrary.

Peter.

[Natalie Severn]

Peter,
There is actually a difference between a man serving life today and cases like Hanratty or Timothy Evans who were hanged by the state.In any case not all cases end with justice being done.

The state maintained for many, many years that Evans was guilty and had murdered his baby daughter while they claimed that Christie was innocent of the crime, Christie was a convicted serial killer ,eventually executed for several murders including that of the wife of Evans .All were living in the same house -Evans ,his wife and baby were his lodgers,in the early 1950"s .But it took years for the state to begin to admit their mistake and that an innocent man,Evans, had been hanged .Even 50 years later ,they refused to let the case go to appeal and have the conviction quashed [All they would acknowledge in 2004 was that it was unlikely to have been Evans who had killed his baby daughter].

In the case of the innocent Stagg, he had the good luck not only to escape the noose,but to have a judge who was so appalled with what he viewed as scandalous -ie the "set up" by the police woman---that he threw everything out,lock stock and barrel.Not all judges would do that .
In the case of Barry George,his family fought for years and lost several appeals until they were successful.
But the case of Steven Kischco, he was imprisoned for sixteen years---for a murder he didnt commit and it should give pause for thought.The man was innocent but couldnt clear his name for all that time.Had he been convicted in 1962 he would almost certainly been hanged.
These are only a few of them...... each man could have hanged at the time Hanratty and the earlier Evans were hanged.
There was another case not that long ago ,where a man was in jail for twenty seven years accused of murder.I cant remember his name but it was only a by a bit of luck that some evidence turned up -proving his innocence --and he was freed.

[Tony]

Thanks Julie and Steve,
We are off on holiday tomorrow but when I get back on 7th June -or soon after,I look forward to discussing this contentious case some more.
Like Julie,I fear the cases of Barry George and Colin Stagg demonstrate how easily a miscarriage of justice can occur-or be in the process of happening ,as was the case with Stagg , especially when the person is already considered to be some sort of "oddball".
I will have to bone up on the Hanratty case a bit more.
Cheers
Norma

Hello Norma,

Welcome to you.

You might also have added that when the forensic boys arrived at Miss Bissett’s flat and went to work with the scientific paraphernalia that produces results some completely rely on and ignore all other evidence; the fingerprint boys took dabs and whose did they find? A certain Mister Nappers; but his prints so closely resembled Samantha Bissetts that they ignored them.

As regards the A6 case there is certainly a very grave concern amongst the Jimdidit lot that he was after all innocent otherwise why are they here straining to prove him guilty once more.

All they need to do is print 3 letters DNA because that is the status quo.

Well for the time being anyway.

What is a bit more concerning to me is how they all seem to have turned on Paul Foot. I think to a man they have all said that they agreed with Paul Foot until this DNA.
Now then if they did it stands to reason they seriously doubted Valerie Storie, Nudds, Langdale, France, Anderson, Acott and all the other misfits who JH came up against. They simply must have done but now the 3 letters have made them realise that they were fools all along.

Lightning doesn’t strike twice does it? Hope not for their sakes.

Tony.

[Victor]

As regards the A6 case there is certainly a very grave concern amongst the Jimdidit lot that he was after all innocent otherwise why are they here straining to prove him guilty once more.

Hi Tony,

"Straining to prove him guilty" is spot on. What is needed is a reasoned coherent argument as to why Hanratty is innocent, where all we are getting is Reg-like Steve comparing people to Nazis because his arguments and reasoning have failed.

All they need to do is print 3 letters DNA because that is the status quo.

The DNA evidence is reasoned and clear. On the victim's knickers (which never went to trial as an exhibit) the scientists discovered blood type-O semen in 1961, 40 years later this semen was DNA profiled and matched Hanratty. If it was due to contamination then what has happened to the rapists' semen?

I don't need any faith to see this, no miracle like vanishing semen or lightening striking multiple times and morphing one profile into another with so great a precision that it's never been witnessed experimentally, let alone reproducibly on each of the repeated DNA tests.

The case of Barry George is startlingly different, there was none of his DNA on Dando's body or clothes, rather the speck of gunshot residue was on his clothes, which he took away with him from the scene of the crime (if it was ever there in the first place) - the rapists semen was left on Storie's knickers at the scene, the hanky was abandoned wrapped around the murder weapon when it was discovered on the bus - these are connecting a person to an item at the scene, not trying to connect a person via an item to the scene.

Now then if they did it stands to reason they seriously doubted Valerie Storie, Nudds, Langdale, France, Anderson, Acott and all the other misfits who JH came up against. They simply must have done but now the 3 letters have made them realise that they were fools all along.

Why not mention the incredibly dodgy Terry Evans and Grace Jones? And don't forget that Hanratty himself was a career criminal... Or as you seem to prefer to call him "loveable rogue".

And why include France and Acott? Why remove your rose-tinted glasses you use when looking at Hanratty just for the prosecution witnesses?

And this is the same argument you've used out before - "No smoke without Fire" that completely contradicts Steve's stated position with regard to the Sandra Lean book.

And the answer is simple, I've given it to you before - prior to the DNA there were sufficient doubts to be able to conclude that the prosecution hadn't proved Hanratty guilty, especially after Foot had muddied the water with his changing eye colour hype. The DNA result quashed the doubt.

KR,
Vic.

[Victor]

The George case is yet a further example of where the courts have shown they are willing to admit mistakes have been made. The more of these cases we see, the harder it is to understand why there should be bias against Hanratty.

Does anyone have a tenable theory as to what is so different about the A6 case that causes the Establishment to want to uphold his conviction if they know him to be innocent?

To my mind, citing cases where convictions have been quashed does not support the Jim is innocent claim – quite the contrary.

Peter.

Hi Peter,

I agree, if the police are willing to admit they've made mistakes, then surely they'd admit it IF they had made a mistake with Hanratty.

The more mistakes they admit to, the less reason (and motive) there is for justifying a fit-up or conspiracy in Hanratty.

Mistakes do happen, but the police are willing to admit they've made them.

KR,
Vic.