a6 murder

[Graham]

[QUOTE=Natalie Severn;138669]

I've kept out of the recent nastiness - my policy is not to get involved.


Graham[/QUOTE

........you could have fooled me!

Don't flatter yourself that I had you in mind when I wrote that, dear.

Graham

[Natalie Severn]

OK, so a few days ago you thought the A6 killer was neither Hanratty nor Alphon, but "you have a few thoughts about that". Can we please share your thoughts?

You now think "at the moment" that it could have been Alphon and he didn't ejaculate. So who did you think it was at the time you made your statement that you thought it was neither Hanratty nor Alphon? If you think "at the moment" it could have been Alphon, who will you possibly think it was in, say, a week's time?

Do you really know what you're talking about, Norma?

If I may paraphrase the excellent Mrs Patrick Campbell in her famous put-down of George Bernard Shaw: Norma, when you were very small, did not your mama or papa ever tell you to shut up?

Graham

Graham,

My response to your original question was a straightforward one .I thought you were being straightforward and were interested to see whether I had arrived at any explanation as to who the gunman was.I was therefore quite surprised to see such a nasty ,supercilious response from you to my response ,which demonstrated you had a very different agenda in asking the question in the first place.

With regards to all such cases the burden of proof is on the Prosecution to prove guilt and not for the defence to prove innocence. If there is even a hint of perjured evidence /withheld evidence by the police or prosecution witnesses the case disappears.It may be of interest to discuss your question as to who else could have done it but actually to show Hanratty did not do it you do not have to show who else it waswho did do it. This was the point I was making with regards to the Guildford Four and the Birmingham Six.In the case of Gerry Conlon it was sufficient for Gareth Peirce to demonstrate that evidence had been withheld from the defence, evidence that had corroborated an alibi to allow them to walk free from court.

[Graham]

I can only suggest that when someone asks you a question that you have the goodness to respond and not avoid it, as you've done a number of times on this thread. I asked you some time ago who you thought the killer was if not Hanratty and Alphon; you never replied and you still haven't. Had I not been interested in hearing your thoughts as to the killer's identity I wouldn't have asked.

Graham

[Victor]

I am not demonising Valerie.You are deliberately avoiding addressing the issue.Tell me Vic, Do you not think,for the sake of truth and justice,that that Jury had a right to know the truth about the situation?

Hi Norma,

I think that the jury had to know all the relevent truth about the situation.

I do not think that the precise details of what the victims were doing before the gunman knocked on the window of the car is relevent.

It's highly likely that the jury saw through the "planning a car rally" euphemism anyway.

As Graham pointed out the couple stopped at an alternative location first so the possibilities of it being a "hit" are remote.

KR,
Vic.

[caz]

I think that the jury had to know all the relevent truth about the situation.

I do not think that the precise details of what the victims were doing before the gunman knocked on the window of the car is relevent.

It's highly likely that the jury saw through the "planning a car rally" euphemism anyway.

Hi Vic,

I just noticed this, although I'm not up to speed with the recent posts yet (about ten days behind in fact).

You are correct of course. The victims were never on trial for anything, nor should they be now. They could have made wild love half a dozen times, or sat there picking their noses or spitting on a photo of his wife, before the gunman arrived on the scene, and it would be nobody's business but their own.

The case was against the defendant. If this one knew he had been seen by several persons in Rhyl, doing nothing criminal, at a time when Valerie was accusing him of rape and murder at the other end of the country, he put the noose round his own neck by not saying so at the earliest opportunity. That's something that can never be laid at the victims' door.

Love,

Caz
X

[Victor]

The victims were never on trial for anything, nor should they be now. They could have made wild love half a dozen times, or sat there picking their noses or spitting on a photo of his wife, before the gunman arrived on the scene, and it would be nobody's business but their own.

Hi Caz,

There are many possibilities for what they were doing, including what the jury were told. They could have had sex before getting to the Old Station Inn, or at Hunterscombe Lane, or in the Old Station Inn car park or bathroom.

They were interested in Car Rallies and had been on a few together, so the "planning" could be planning a trip to one together, and Valerie's evidence was entirely accurate for the cornfield part, just excluding the preceeding sexual activity. Yet most people still assume it was euphemistic (including myself in my previous post) without knowing for certain.

KR,
Vic.

[Natalie Severn]

Graham and Baby Bird,

Well now I had not noticed anything much in the past ten days or even weeks -from either of you two , when blow me down - I get several snide and sneery little put downs from Graham and a wholesale lecture from his pal ,Baby Bird ,criticising the way I post and asking me if,:" I am the sort of woman who supports dissecting a rape victim"s sexual history and laying it out in front of the jury so they can know "the truth" whether it is relevant or not? "-----what sort of a question is that for heavens sake-more a direct attack on me which answers itself .

So are you ,Baby Bird, the sort of woman who considers herself some kind of superior authority on "victims of rape? " Do you give women who are victims of rape "advice" on what to do, how to feel,where to go for help? OMG I hope not!

Next I get advised on "How to post on Casebook",---I have only been posting here for the past seven years mind, but no ,I dont use the quote feature much because I find that often when sentences are "decontextualised" from whole paragraphs , meaning can often be "misrepresented"-besides none of the moderators have complained to me about my posts.


Oh what the heck.No wonder I keep getting emails and PM"s from kindly people who no longer post on the thread because "its poison" as one of them aptly put it!

Anyway,no need to derail this thread anymore.I shall wait now to see if some people from my side of the debate return to post regularly again before I return to this thoroughly nasty arena.

[Limehouse]

Good evening all,

Well, here we are again.

What can be said to salvalge this situation?

Both sides of the debate feel passionate about their views and ideas. Both sides care deeply about the issues involved.

I think it's always useful to see what those whose views differ have in common and I can identify the follwoing:

Both sides agree this this was a most horrendous crime with many victims whose pain and anguish has echoed down the years. Victims include VS, Mg and their families and friends but also Hanratty's family who were innocent of any crime and lost a dearly loved son and brother.

Both sides agree that there are unanswered questions concerning this crime and the biggest unanswered question of all is the one that divides us - WHY? Why did this crime happen?

Some who support the DNA outcome had grave doubts about the value and quality of evidence put before the court.

Others feel the evidence was sound and is backed up by the DNA.

Perhaps we can step back a little and ensure no other vicitms of this crime are created (ie people feeling stressed and victimised?

I have to go off right now but I will be back later to ponder some thoughts and ideas.

Julie

[NickB]

Surely trying to unravel the puzzles in this case is what interests us. We pretty much agree on what they are, so I don’t see why they can’t be discussed with mutual benefit in mind.

Perhaps another aspect of common interest is the feeling of ‘there but for fortune go I’. Is there any lesson we can draw from the incident that might help us if we were in a similar situation?

I’d like to offer up a couple:
1. Playing dead is a good way of staying alive. Valerie played this well, although no doubt being paralysed helped.
2. Valerie and Michael could have had pre-agreed code words. For example, when they stopped at the petrol station one of them could have said the code for “Run like hell - now!”

[babybird67]

Hi Norma

Well now I had not noticed anything much in the past ten days or even weeks -from either of you two , when blow me down - I get several snide and sneery little put downs from Graham and a wholesale lecture from his pal ,Baby Bird ,criticising the way I post and asking me if,:" I am the sort of woman who supports dissecting a rape victim"s sexual history and laying it out in front of the jury so they can know "the truth" whether it is relevant or not? "-----what sort of a question is that for heavens sake-more a direct attack on me which answers itself .

I did not realise we had to post to a schedule you had set up. I apologise profusely. I will try to post as and when you require me to post in future, if that will help. As for any direct attack by myself on you, if you believe that to be the case, by all means report my post to admin who i am sure will deal with your complaints.

The question I asked you was in direct response to your continual insistence that the sexual history of a rape victim should be laid before the jury in what was not even a rape trial, but a murder trial. Valerie’s sexual history and that of Michael Gregsten was absolutely and completely irrelevant to Hanratty’s defence. Whether she was having sex with a hundred married men, or wearing short skirts, or whatever, was totally irrelevant. I asked you the question in order for you to question your own comments; to establish if you really believed it was relevant to have the sexual history of a rape victim put before a jury because it was ‘true’ and whether you understood the concept that by insisting that Valerie, because she had been raped, had no entitlement to a private sexual life was undermining women’s rights and throwing us back to the dark ages in terms of those rights.

I have to admit I find it difficult to conceive that there are women who exist who actually do think a rape victim’s sexual history ought to be public knowledge, but as you have repeatedly shown support for such a position, I have to concede that such women do exist, however repugnant as a woman I find that fact.

Let me state it more clearly for you. The sexual history of a victim of rape, in my opinion, should NOT be disclosed to the jury, however true it is. A woman can sleep with as many men as she wants, married or not, private morality is that person‘s private business: if she is raped, that information is not relevant and should not be disclosed to anybody. It is nobody else’s business but her own. Sleeping with men, whether they are married or not, is not a crime. I was hoping you would see the illogical and inequitable nature of your comments when I pointed them out to you, which you indirectly did by admitting that in ‘most cases’ you agreed with me. I asked you why, in your opinion, an exception should have been made for Valerie, making her not only the victim of rape and attempted murder, but of having her private life exposed to a jury trying a man for murder, when it was totally irrelevant; I also asked you if you had considered the effect on Michael’s widow of having his private sexual life also exposed to public scrutiny when she was already dealing with a bereavement in the most horrific of circumstances; but as yet, unsurprisingly, there has been no response or attempt at explaining the logic which wishes to afford this privacy to other rape victims but deny it to Valerie Storie.

So are you ,Baby Bird, the sort of woman who considers herself some kind of superior authority on "victims of rape? " Do you give women who are victims of rape "advice" on what to do, how to feel,where to go for help? OMG I hope not!

What strange questions Norma. No, I don’t counsel victims of rape. I have not been trained to. However, I would not insult a victim of rape by

a/ stating I thought I knew better than she did who the man who raped her was;

b/ accuse her of complicity, for which she would have no motive and which would be absolutely morally repugnant and an evil thing to do, in an establishment fit up of the person who raped her;

c/ state I respected her and then suggest that her entire sexual history and personal moral choices should be submitted to a jury who were not even trying a rape case in the first place!

Unfortunately, those defending “our Jim”, bless his cotton socks, faced with Valerie Storie’s evidence and the DNA results, resort to doing all those things, and sadly they do not seem to understand how this comes over to other women and how it must come over to victims of rape and sexual assault in particular, in what are crimes which are difficult enough to get convictions on anyway. 95% of rape cases go un-prosecuted. That means rapists are getting away with violating women on a monumental scale. Even in those cases that are prosecuted, the conviction rate is much lower than in other prosecuted crimes because it often comes down to one person’s word against another. Cases in which there is DNA evidence supporting the victim are not common so when DNA is found it can make a big difference in gaining a conviction for an horrific crime against women. I know whose word I would choose to believe faced with a choice of Valerie Storie, a law-abiding, responsible citizen, and James Hanratty, career criminal and serial liar, and we all know whose evidence is supported by scientific DNA evidence. Of course everyone is free to make their own choices, and if they wish to live in Topsy Turvey Town, where rape victims are guilty, and criminals are angels, and DNA is either so thin to evaporate or so thick as to contaminate, they must live with their own consciences and I wish them sweet dreams.

Next I get advised on "How to post on Casebook",---I have only been posting here for the past seven years mind, but no ,I dont use the quote feature much because I find that often when sentences are "decontextualised" from whole paragraphs , meaning can often be "misrepresented"-besides none of the moderators have complained to me about my posts.

Selective quoting is a prerequisite skill for research. It helps focus the mind on the issue at hand and direct a response to a question. I find Victor’s posts, for example, succinct and to the point, because he always quotes briefly first what he is replying to. This makes it easy to continue the discussion, because all the relevant information is in one post, questions can be addressed and issues highlighted. I still have not had answers to the questions I posed to you. Let me try once more with this one: if you believe Alphon was the rapist but he did not ejaculate, how were the Police able to blood type the offender from the semen left on Ms Storie’s underwear?

Oh what the heck.No wonder I keep getting emails and PM"s from kindly people who no longer post on the thread because "its poison" as one of them aptly put it!

I no longer posted on the thread for the same reason. It is poison to me to see people call a victim of rape a liar. I find it hugely offensive as a woman. I find it, to be honest, unacceptable. I find it unacceptable that people, especially women, would suggest that the victim of rape should have her private sexual history put before a jury at all. I find it offensive that even with the amount of evidence against James Hanratty, including the DNA results, Valerie Storie is still being demonised to this day, and James Hanratty, who spent the whole of his life taking other people’s possessions that they had worked hard for all their lives, lying, breaking the law, and generally causing heartache and upset everywhere he went is, in Topsy Turvey Town, some kind of hero to some people just because he was working class. He was not just ‘a bit of a lad’. He was a career criminal, by his own admission seeking to branch out into armed robberies. ARMED ROBBERIES. He was such an incompetent criminal that his first attempt at armed robbery resulted in the accidental murder of Michael Gregsten. He compounded this crime with the deliberate and evil acts of rape and attempted murder against Valerie Storie. Yet in la la land he is more of a trustworthy witness than Valerie herself! Unbelievable, it truly is. I loathe and despise the worship and exoneration of the ‘good old working class criminal fraternity’ where people like the Krays and Hanratty are treated as if they are ‘just working class good lads at heart.’ Newsflash. These people are nasty, manipulative, lying, heartless criminals. I feel sorry for the sort of people who are taken in by them, to be honest.

Here is one last question for you Norma. You have attacked the process of LCN DNA, yes? I have asked Steve this question a couple of times but he has always failed to answer it. If you believe so strongly that LCN is an unjust method of conviction and not fit for purpose, why aren’t you campaigning to get people like Ronald Castree released? His conviction was possible because of advances in DNA techniques. Tiny amounts were taken from pieces of cello tape, allowing the Police to convict this man for what he did to his victim. Perhaps you would like to read how the victim’s mother felt when her daughter’s murderer was convicted before you start your campaign? Perhaps you would also like to read that DNA is never used as a stand alone method of conviction, but is used as one piece in a puzzle of assembling evidence against a suspect. Here is the link for you.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/jan/16/ukcrime.forensicscience

Hanratty’s puzzle is full of pieces of evidence, not conjecture, or possibilities, or vague sightings by people who can only say they saw ‘someone like Hanratty’ at a time when Hanratty himself testified that he was nowhere near the area they say they saw him. This is why his conviction has been upheld twice. This is why it is offensive to me to keep reading the same old rubbish about Valerie Storie being mistaken or lying about who raped her. This is why it is offensive to me as a woman to read that other women think a rape victim’s sexual history would be a relevant disclosure in a murder trial. And this is why I have been motivated to post again (begging your pardon, Ma’am. - doffs cap).

By the way, if the thread is ‘poison’, and by your own accusation neither myself nor Graham have been posting here for months, we cannot be responsible for making it poison, because we haven’t been here, have we. In fact the thread has been notable recently for its profusion of pro-Hanratty posts, although granted a fair many of them were coming from a pro-Hanratty sock puppet, who I note has now been humanely destroyed, like his predecessor.

[Limehouse]

Everyone was has ever posted on this thread has expressed deep sorrow and sympathy for what Valerie experienced that night. People who doubt Hanratty's guilt do not necessarily doubt Valerie's the honesty of Valerie's testimony.

Some people may feel that the DNA and evidence proves Hanratty's guilt but clearly others feel differently. Not agreeing with the verdict does not mean we are in love with Hanratty as a citizen or that we wish to victimise the victims further. It simply menas we do not feel that justice has been done - either to Hanratty or his victims.

Ronald Castree is only in prison now because an innocent man was firstly convicted of the crime he committed. Lesly's mother thought justice had been done when they locked away poor Stefan. But no, back then, British justice consisted of looking around for the local oddball, calling him a 'nonce' because he was a loner who lived with his mother, and extracting a confession from him and banging him up for year when a simple scientific test, available at the time, could have shown that he could not be the murdere because his semen contained no sperm, unlike the killer.

I could go on, but I am slightly disgusted by the turn this thread has taken.

[Natalie Severn]

Many Thanks Julie---.Just put her on ignore.
Take Care,
Norma

[Limehouse]

[QUOTE=babybird67;138760]Hi Norma

I no longer posted on the thread for the same reason. It is poison to me to see people call a victim of rape a liar. I find it hugely offensive as a woman. I find it, to be honest, unacceptable. I find it unacceptable that people, especially women, would suggest that the victim of rape should have her private sexual history put before a jury at all. I find it offensive that even with the amount of evidence against James Hanratty, including the DNA results, Valerie Storie is still being demonised to this day, and James Hanratty, who spent the whole of his life taking other people’s possessions that they had worked hard for all their lives, lying, breaking the law, and generally causing heartache and upset everywhere he went is, in Topsy Turvey Town, some kind of hero to some people just because he was working class. He was not just ‘a bit of a lad’. He was a career criminal, by his own admission seeking to branch out into armed robberies. ARMED ROBBERIES. He was such an incompetent criminal that his first attempt at armed robbery resulted in the accidental murder of Michael Gregsten. He compounded this crime with the deliberate and evil acts of rape and attempted murder against Valerie Storie. Yet in la la land he is more of a trustworthy witness than Valerie herself! Unbelievable, it truly is. I loathe and despise the worship and exoneration of the ‘good old working class criminal fraternity’ where people like the Krays and Hanratty are treated as if they are ‘just working class good lads at heart.’ Newsflash. These people are nasty, manipulative, lying, heartless criminals. I feel sorry for the sort of people who are taken in by them, to be honest.


Absolutely no one who has ever posted on this thread has ever come even close to hero-worshipping Hanratty and the Krays have never even been mentioned. Almost without fail, people who doubt Hanratty's guilt have acknowledged his criminality and have expressed contempt for it. No one has exprfessed any sentiment at all for the 'good old working class criminal fraternity' which is more myth than reality and real working class people loath such sentiment. My parents, who died far too young, are buried just a few feet from the Kray scumbags and it upsets me very much.

[Limehouse]

[QUOTE=babybird67;138760]Hi Norma

Valerie’s sexual history and that of Michael Gregsten was absolutely and completely irrelevant to Hanratty’s defence. Whether she was having sex with a hundred married men, or wearing short skirts, or whatever, was totally irrelevant.


Actually, in the circumstances you describe above, her sexaul history might be relevant. For example, if the rapist left no semen because he did not ejaculate, or if his semen missed the knicker portion, but the vicitm had had other sexual partners that day, then the presence of a man other than the rapist would be explained. If the knicker fragment was then contaminated by the defendent's DNA, well - we might have an answer to the puzzle.

[babybird67]

Everyone was has ever posted on this thread has expressed deep sorrow and sympathy for what Valerie experienced that night.

(my emphasis)

That is an utter and outright lie, Julie, as I have pointed out to you several times. In post 4295 to this thread, reg1965 posted the following:

To suggest that Valerie Storie didn't know that she was lying in the witness box is beyond comprehension. She didn't have a clue who MG's killer was any more than you do. That was why her uncertainties were withheld from the jury and completely hobbled the defence. If you are any sort of half decent academic you would realise the implications of this wicked act by the plod and Valerie Storie.

There is no sympathy there for Valerie. There is no empathy, no understanding, no humanity. In fact there are the most base accusations of criminal activity on the part of the VICTIM of the crime. I pointed it out to you at the time, and am pointing it out to you YET AGAIN! There are several other examples of Reg aka SteveS (who also resurrected himself as clive) calling Valerie and outright liar and accusing her of wickedness. I will find other examples tomorrow when i have time. But please don't come to this thread and lie, because the evidence is there in black and white for everyone to see. How many more times do i have to bring this to your attention and ask you to condemn such comments, for you to deny they even exist in the first place? It's getting ridiculous now. I find it difficult to swallow that Reg's 'pals' on this thread were not aware of his sock puppeting activity given the collective back slapping etc that characterises all the posts between you, but again, people who support bullies have to be comfortable sleeping with their own consciences. At least i know i wouldn't support aggressive misogynistic liars.

Ronald Castree is only in prison now because an innocent man was firstly convicted of the crime he committed. Lesly's mother thought justice had been done when they locked away poor Stefan. But no, back then, British justice consisted of looking around for the local oddball, calling him a 'nonce' because he was a loner who lived with his mother, and extracting a confession from him and banging him up for year when a simple scientific test, available at the time, could have shown that he could not be the murdere because his semen contained no sperm, unlike the killer.

(my emphasis)

I am not quite sure how you could have missed the irony of your comments, since this is precisely what almost happened to Alphon, who has now been exonerated by the science, and yet we STILL have Hanratty defenders trying to implicate him.

I could go on, but I am slightly disgusted by the turn this thread has taken.

It does not surprise me that you describe as disgusting a woman's response to someone's argument that a rape victim's sexual history should be disclosed to a murder trial jury. It was totally expected to be honest. And, in black and white, my posts can stand, where i have not insulted Norma at all, but she responded to me with personal insults, saying she hoped i was not counselling women who had been raped.

I suggest both of you go and ask rape victims if they would rather be counselled by someone who BELIEVES what they say about their experience, or two fellow women who say she is either a liar or too incompetent to know the truth.

I have work tomorrow but am aware you have posted again. I'll address your other points tomorrow if i have time.