a6 murder

[Natalie Severn]

A eureka moment !

Julie----that actually fits with something I read about Valerie having another male friend from her office who she also went to the cornfield with .Its a possibility Julie---must give this some serious thought !
Best Wishes and Goodnight!
Norma

[babybird67]

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.

'Might be' doesn't cut it. None of those circumstances above apply. The rapist did leave semen. The semen's profile was that of James Hanratty. Contamination was not possible because semen cannot bypass getting through an envelope which was dry and uncontaminated, nor can it erase the rapist's real DNA leaving itself behind.

So, no, her sexual history was then and is now completely and utterly irrelevant.

[babybird67]

lol see...

Julie----that actually fits with something I read about Valerie having another male friend from her office who she also went to the cornfield with .Its a possibility Julie---must give this some serious thought !
Best Wishes and Goodnight!
Norma

a prime example, we now have people suggesting Valerie was so much of a 'slut' she was at the cornfield with multiple partners! Bravo Norma! A great regression for women everywhere! I applaud you!

now i really must go to bed. Work in the morning.

thanks for my welcome back, Graham.

[RonIpstone]

Bob in The Oldie

Ladies and gentlemen, especially ladies, it does not advance the argument one jot to resort to personal abuse of those who adopt a contrary stance in the debate. Let us have a clean fight here.

Before flying from Manchester to the sunny isle of Crete I bought Richard Ingrams’s mag, The Oldie, for the article written on the A6 Murder by our old friend, Robert ‘Bob’ Woffinden. I was a little disappointed by Bob’s effort, which opened with an attack on the judiciary for failing to get the case the publicity that Bob thought it deserved by their Lordships insistence on reading their judgement out aloud, rather than providing a short synopsis for inclusion in the Saturday papers.

Bob continued with the argument that Hanratty could not have committed the rape and murder because he was not that type of chap. He would not have had the mental equipment to dominate the two high flying civil servants, Mike and Val, for the length of time that ‘gunman’ did on the night of 22/23 August 1961. Furthermore Hanratty as Bob formally calls our hero, Jim, had an alibi that he was in Rhyl at the time of the crime. An alibi that Bob assures us Hanratty could not have invented as he was incapable of inventing anything. Moreover Alphon was the original suspect and a far more credible one. The inference being that Alphon should have swung for the crime not our Jim.

Bob then turns to the knotty problem of the forensic evidence which has become something of a thorn in the side of those who champion Jim’s innocence. Bob bewails Home Office intransigence and obduracy over a period of seven years or so when the much maligned government department refused to allow re-testing of the knickers fragment. Alas and alack for Bob and others of a like mind when re-testing was allowed the results unexpectedly showed that Hanratty was indeed guilty of the crime. Obviously the results are wrong and science is nonsense based as it is on the technique known as Low Copy Number (LCN); a technique which our American cousins in law enforcement, the FBI, now refuse to employ.

Admittedly Bob only had two pages of the mag to get his points across and therefore probably felt that he did not have the space or the time to put forward the points which weigh against Hanratty. I will try and redress the balance and make some points in favour of the prosecution case.

First, the crime was bizarre; why would anyone want to hold up a courting or rallying planning couple in a Moggie Minor? Courting couples in Moggie Minors are not known for carrying large amounts of cash, gunmen usually hold up banks, post offices, jewellers and the like. Since the execution of Hanratty I believe that no gunman has ever held up a couple in a Moggie Minor. This is powerful evidence that Hanratty was the gunman in question. Hanratty alive, couples in Minors held up: Hanratty dead, couples in Minors not held up.

Second, Hanratty was inventive enough to make up the exclusively Liverpool alibi and maintained that he had been in Liverpool with friends on the night of 22/23 and the succeeding night, a pretence he kept up, to not only his lawyers but to his family and friends, only revealing half way through the trial that he had travelled to Rhyl and stayed there until 24 August.

Third, the Rhyl alibi, insofar as it rests on the evidence of Mrs Jones given at the trial and her daughter given latter, is open to suspicion on the grounds that room Hanratty describes he stayed in did not match the only room which could have been used at Ingeldene, namely an attic room in which there stood a green bath. Hanratty never said he slept in a room with a green bath and as the only room available had such an item then Hanratty cannot have stayed at Ingeldene.

Fourth, I cannot understand why Alphon was a more credible suspect than Hanratty. The Police’s attention was drawn to the Vienna Hotel three weeks after the crime when the cartridge cases were discovered in room 24; a room in which Hanratty had been the last Caucasian to have stayed there (on 21/22 August) before the finding of the spent cases. Alphon had booked in for the night of the murder and had stayed in room 6; a different room on a different floor. Hanratty was identified by Val and others whereas Alphon was not. (Michael Mansfield QC for Hanratty’s brother admitted in the Court of Appeal that Alphon could not have been the murderer.)

Fifth, admittedly the DNA evidence is open to objection on the basis that there was a remote possibility that Hanratty’s DNA had been deposited on the knickers fragment by contamination. That would account for Hanratty’s DNA being present on the fragment, but if Hanratty’s DNA was there as a contaminant, then where was the rapist’s DNA? We know that the knickers had been tested and it had been established that the rapist was a group O secretor (other seminal fluid stains had been found on the knickers from an AB secretor presumed to be Michael Gregsten). So how had the rapist’s DNA vanished? It had not vanished; Hanratty was the rapist and was therefore the murderer.

Those of us who have seen the light and now realise that Hanratty was a nasty unpleasant piece of work and either that he committed the A6 Murder or it is very likely that he committed the murder get a little impatient with those who have not seen the light. We are inclined to regard them as being barking mad. But is this not part of life’s rich pattern? Should we not indulge those with such eccentric views? I think we should, but perhaps paying Ł3.50 for Mr Ingrams’s Oldie mag to read Woffinden was overdoing it a bit.

[Natalie Severn]

Hi Ron,

Obviously the results are wrong and science is nonsense based as it is on the technique known as Low Copy Number (LCN); a technique which our American cousins in law enforcement, the FBI, now refuse to employ

The 2002 appeal ruling , also says at paragraph 116,that Dr Grant cut the knicker sample * the day after he examined Hanratty"s Green suit .It is therefore very possible for DNA from the suit to have got onto the knicker fragment especially given the FBI commissioned research carried out by Dr Budowle also pointing out ,only very recently ,that mixture profiles and interpretation has not been validated.

Obviously the results are wrong and science is nonsense based as it is on the technique known as Low Copy Number (LCN); a technique which our American cousins in law enforcement, the FBI, now refuse to employ

Yes,they could well be wrong.

Since the execution of Hanratty I believe that no gunman has ever held up a couple in a Moggie Minor. This is powerful evidence that Hanratty was the gunman in question. Hanratty alive, couples in Minors held up: Hanratty dead, couples in Minors not held up.

One of the significant features of the case against Hanratty is that there is no evidence of him ever having been violent ,despite his record for burglary .Moreover,not one of the women with whom he had had sexual relations said anything that indicated he had ever been unpleasant to them or had shown him to be interested in unusual sexual practices.

Will return to the issue of alibis later as I have to leave off while I transfer some images.

Cheers Ron
Norma

* Did you know Ron, that the knicker sample had also been "dropped on a nearby bench" ,in 1961 and this too is reported in amongst the old papers?

[Natalie Severn]

Ron,
Clearly the Liverpool story did Hanratty no favours.That said the shop incident with Mrs Dinwoody,is ,in my view a cast iron alibi .
Mrs Dinwoody was not in her shop after the 22nd August,as she took ill on the night of 22nd August and did not return that week.But,she said, she remembered it was Monday 21st August when she saw Hanratty in her shop because that was the day her granddaughter, Barbara,helped her in the shop---whereas the following day she did not.However,some time later,when Barbara and her friend Linda were interviewed about the alibi,and both said that they were both in that shop in the late afternoon between 4 pm and 5 pm and that Barbarahad been allowed to serve children,but not adults with sweets that day.
Barbara distinctly remembered Hanratty asking for help over finding an address on one of the two days when her nan was there that week..
Finally there is the record in the Vienna Hotel of Hanratty staying there on the night of 21st August, arriving after nine but before 11 o"clock,as well as Carol France recalling him calling there on the day she had her dental appt.Hanratty could not have got back from Liverpool in time to check in,on that day,had he gone on 21st,
Norma

[Natalie Severn]

The Rhyl Alibis

Referring to the mention of the Rhyl alibi who testified in court for Hanratty.
Mrs Jones endured a sarcastic and condescending "cross questioning" about the records she kept in her visitors book from the prosecution.The book was dropped by Swanwick,[prosecution] as he handed it to her and its pages flew out on the court room floor.It was inferred that she was a greedy landlady who filled up her guest house to the brim----that her record keeping was abysmal --he went to far as to produce,unbeknown to her, the record book but Mr Swanwick then earned a strong rebuke by the judge for "having asked this lady if she had brought it [to court] when all the time you had it.
Importantly Hanratty had remembered the green bath in the room at the top of the house.He also remembered the outside back yard.MrsJones told the both his statements were correct.She did indeed have a green bath at the top of her house- and the back yard was described correctly--which he could haveseen when he was having breakfast in their private room at the back,used for guests only when the guest house was over full---as it was that night.
Below I have posteda picture of Mrs Grace Jones showing her to be a perfectly respectable looking woman.{Hawser in his report refers to her door being answered by "a plump blond woman"-he doesn"t name the woman but the connotation embedded in such a description seems to be that they looked to be a bit feckless or unreliable in my opinion because there appears to be no good reason for him stating this other than to infer a "type".However-as can be seen in the photo,Mrs Jones did not look either plump or blond.She looks exactly as Hanratty had described her---grey haired about 50,my mum"s age.Must leave off now-but hope to post more on the "discredited" alibis later!
Cheers
Norma

[Limehouse]

(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:

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 thisthread 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.


(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.


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.

Please do not call me a liar. I would never intentionally lie about another woman's horrific experience in order to gain from an argument.

I have never implied Valerie is a liar and have always supported the notion that she believed she had identified her attacker and believes that to this day.

Regarding Alphon, I have always expressed doubt about Alphon as well as Hanratty and would not have been comfortable with a conviction against Alphon for this crime.

I want to repeat here and now that I feel nothing but compassion for ALL of the victims of this crime. I am not a liar or a bully or a sock puppet.

Finally, what evidence is there that Clive is the former Reg?

[Limehouse]

Ladies and gentlemen, especially ladies, it does not advance the argument one jot to resort to personal abuse of those who adopt a contrary stance in the debate. Let us have a clean fight here.

Before flying from Manchester to the sunny isle of Crete I bought Richard Ingrams’s mag, The Oldie, for the article written on the A6 Murder by our old friend, Robert ‘Bob’ Woffinden. I was a little disappointed by Bob’s effort, which opened with an attack on the judiciary for failing to get the case the publicity that Bob thought it deserved by their Lordships insistence on reading their judgement out aloud, rather than providing a short synopsis for inclusion in the Saturday papers.

Bob continued with the argument that Hanratty could not have committed the rape and murder because he was not that type of chap. He would not have had the mental equipment to dominate the two high flying civil servants, Mike and Val, for the length of time that ‘gunman’ did on the night of 22/23 August 1961. Furthermore Hanratty as Bob formally calls our hero, Jim, had an alibi that he was in Rhyl at the time of the crime. An alibi that Bob assures us Hanratty could not have invented as he was incapable of inventing anything. Moreover Alphon was the original suspect and a far more credible one. The inference being that Alphon should have swung for the crime not our Jim.

Bob then turns to the knotty problem of the forensic evidence which has become something of a thorn in the side of those who champion Jim’s innocence. Bob bewails Home Office intransigence and obduracy over a period of seven years or so when the much maligned government department refused to allow re-testing of the knickers fragment. Alas and alack for Bob and others of a like mind when re-testing was allowed the results unexpectedly showed that Hanratty was indeed guilty of the crime. Obviously the results are wrong and science is nonsense based as it is on the technique known as Low Copy Number (LCN); a technique which our American cousins in law enforcement, the FBI, now refuse to employ.

Admittedly Bob only had two pages of the mag to get his points across and therefore probably felt that he did not have the space or the time to put forward the points which weigh against Hanratty. I will try and redress the balance and make some points in favour of the prosecution case.

First, the crime was bizarre; why would anyone want to hold up a courting or rallying planning couple in a Moggie Minor? Courting couples in Moggie Minors are not known for carrying large amounts of cash, gunmen usually hold up banks, post offices, jewellers and the like. Since the execution of Hanratty I believe that no gunman has ever held up a couple in a Moggie Minor. This is powerful evidence that Hanratty was the gunman in question. Hanratty alive, couples in Minors held up: Hanratty dead, couples in Minors not held up.

Second, Hanratty was inventive enough to make up the exclusively Liverpool alibi and maintained that he had been in Liverpool with friends on the night of 22/23 and the succeeding night, a pretence he kept up, to not only his lawyers but to his family and friends, only revealing half way through the trial that he had travelled to Rhyl and stayed there until 24 August.

Third, the Rhyl alibi, insofar as it rests on the evidence of Mrs Jones given at the trial and her daughter given latter, is open to suspicion on the grounds that room Hanratty describes he stayed in did not match the only room which could have been used at Ingeldene, namely an attic room in which there stood a green bath. Hanratty never said he slept in a room with a green bath and as the only room available had such an item then Hanratty cannot have stayed at Ingeldene.

Fourth, I cannot understand why Alphon was a more credible suspect than Hanratty. The Police’s attention was drawn to the Vienna Hotel three weeks after the crime when the cartridge cases were discovered in room 24; a room in which Hanratty had been the last Caucasian to have stayed there (on 21/22 August) before the finding of the spent cases. Alphon had booked in for the night of the murder and had stayed in room 6; a different room on a different floor. Hanratty was identified by Val and others whereas Alphon was not. (Michael Mansfield QC for Hanratty’s brother admitted in the Court of Appeal that Alphon could not have been the murderer.)

Fifth, admittedly the DNA evidence is open to objection on the basis that there was a remote possibility that Hanratty’s DNA had been deposited on the knickers fragment by contamination. That would account for Hanratty’s DNA being present on the fragment, but if Hanratty’s DNA was there as a contaminant, then where was the rapist’s DNA? We know that the knickers had been tested and it had been established that the rapist was a group O secretor (other seminal fluid stains had been found on the knickers from an AB secretor presumed to be Michael Gregsten). So how had the rapist’s DNA vanished? It had not vanished; Hanratty was the rapist and was therefore the murderer.

Those of us who have seen the light and now realise that Hanratty was a nasty unpleasant piece of work and either that he committed the A6 Murder or it is very likely that he committed the murder get a little impatient with those who have not seen the light. We are inclined to regard them as being barking mad. But is this not part of life’s rich pattern? Should we not indulge those with such eccentric views? I think we should, but perhaps paying Ł3.50 for Mr Ingrams’s Oldie mag to read Woffinden was overdoing it a bit.

Hi Ron,

I can't agree with your conclusions but I appreciate your humour and welcome it. Bless you.

Julie

[Natalie Severn]

Ladies and gentlemen, especially ladies, it does not advance the argument one jot to resort to personal abuse of those who adopt a contrary stance in the debate. Let us have a clean fight here.

.............


Those of us who have seen the light and now realise that Hanratty was a nasty unpleasant piece of work and either that he committed the A6 Murder or it is very likely that he committed the murder get a little impatient with those who have not seen the light. We are inclined to regard them as being barking mad.

But have you indeed "seen the light" Ron ?I intend to contact admin if these thoroughly unpleasant personal attacks do continue on this thread ,littered as it has been with such hysterical invective ---if not totally bonkers diatribes -the past day or so ,but your post isnt really helpful to the situation if you yourself reinforce the concept by inferring that those of you " who have seen the light " think the rest of us are all mad and bonkers---[I have a Jehovah witness caller who thinks everybody who hasn"t seen the light must be mad !]

Best Wishes,

[Graham]

Good post, Ron, but if everyone believed in Hanratty's guilt we wouldn't have a thread, would we?

Regarding the alibis, JH was certainly in Liverpool at some point after the morning of 23rd August, and it was established that one of his acquaintances there was a man called Terence McNally who lived in a flat in the Bull Ring and who had met JH in prison. JH identified McNally to his defence, who sent Joe Gillbanks to interview him. According to Woffinden, McNally told Gillbanks that, quote, if Hanratty is not willing to open up, why should I? I have always puzzled about what McNally meant by this. Obviously, had McNally backed up JH's original claim that he was in Liverpool on 22nd August then he, McNally, could have been done for perverting the course of justice, a serious crime and especially so in a murder investigation. But nevertheless, what he said to Gillbanks has always struck me as odd. It seems to me, as it long has, that had JH stuck to his original Liverpool alibi, and effectively challenged the prosecution to disprove it, he'd have been in with a shout. I would suggest that he changed to the Rhyl Alibi after his trial had started because he realised that no-one in Liverpool was going to support him.

The Rhyl Alibi was (obviously) a total disaster. The only ways JH had of absolutely proving his presence in Rhyl (or anywhere else, for that matter) would have a been a signature in a visitor's book or, maybe a little less concrete, someone prepared to swear on oath prior to the trial that JH had indeed beein in his or her company on the night of the 22nd August. I would expect that, in retrospect, Sherrard absolutely regretted calling Mrs Jones as a witness, but of course he had been unable to disuade JH from sticking to his changed alibi, and had made him sign a document absolving his defence team of any responsibility for possible consequences arising. Obviously even Sherrard felt that the Rhyl Alibi wasn't sustainable. The other very telling point is that no-one staying at Ingledene recalled seeing anyone like JH, and I don't accept that this is because according to his claim he took his breakfasts away from the main dining-area. No-one saw him in the hall, on the stairs, on a landing, going to and from the toilet? As to his description of Ingledene, JH was semi-nomadic and must have stayed at innumerable small hotels and boarding-houses during his career, and when asked to describe Ingledene he just came out with an amalgam of features from previous places he'd stayed at.

One final point I'd like to make: Nick B made an excellent post suggesting the possibility of some research into the character and background of Trower and Skillett, but as far as I can see no-one has even acknowledged this post. Well, I do, Nick, and you make a very good point. This thread isn't just about DNA and the character of Valerie Storie....

Graham

[RonIpstone]

According to Woffinden, McNally told Gillbanks that, quote, if Hanratty is not willing to open up, why should I? I have always puzzled about what McNally meant by this.

Graham, I am not sure that the words you quote were the actual words employed by McNally or were a summary of the arguments deployed by McNally so as not to get involved in the trial. Whatever, McNally does not seem to deny that he and Hanratty met on 22 August, whereas Hanratty in his later statement (i.e. the Rhyl alibi) makes no mention of meeting up with McNally, or any other previous acquaintance, in Liverpool.

I would assume that McNally did not want to get involved either in supporting or demolishing Hanratty's alibi (i.e. the first one which was exclusively Liverpool). The best he could come up with was evasion of stating the whole truth which would have been that although he had known Hanratty, he had not met up with him in August 1961 in Liverpool.

Ron

[Graham]

Graham, I am not sure that the words you quote were the actual words employed by McNally or were a summary of the arguments deployed by McNally so as not to get involved in the trial. Whatever, McNally does not seem to deny that he and Hanratty met on 22 August, whereas Hanratty in his later statement (i.e. the Rhyl alibi) makes no mention of meeting up with McNally, or any other previous acquaintance, in Liverpool.

I would assume that McNally did not want to get involved either in supporting or demolishing Hanratty's alibi (i.e. the first one which was exclusively Liverpool). The best he could come up with was evasion of stating the whole truth which would have been that although he had known Hanratty, he had not met up with him in August 1961 in Liverpool.

Ron

No, you're right, the words I quoted were indeed a summary of what he told Gillbanks, i.e., don't involve me, pal. McNally neither denied nor confirmed that JH had stayed with him on 22nd August - it's very plain that he wanted to distance himself from the whole thing, and who can blame him? The police seemed satisfied that he hadn't harboured JH, and it seems he just disappeared into obscurity, but nevertheless I still find his presence in the case somewhat begging further investigation, if that were possible.

Graham

[Limehouse]

a prime example, we now have people suggesting Valerie was so much of a 'slut' she was at the cornfield with multiple partners! Bravo Norma! A great regression for women everywhere! I applaud you!

now i really must go to bed. Work in the morning.

thanks for my welcome back, Graham.

Nobody is suggestinjg Valerie was a slut. However, you yourself put forward the notion that it would not make any difference to the case, if Valerie had had one hundred lovers. I replied that it might have made a difference if ine of those lovers had deposited the other semen stain on her knickers and the rapist hadn't deposited.

Norma was, I think, referring to a statement made by a colleague at the Road Research Laboratory with reference to Gregsten and Storie being 'in trouble' because of their affair. I quote from page 17 of Woffinden:

"Another of the civil servants in the Road Research Laboratory office recalled what he had learned of the situation: "Miss Storie said she woul;d see less of Mr Gregsten if i took her out once a week. She pestered me, and eventually I took her out to the cinema on two or three occasions.

He goes on to say:

'Following one of these visits to the cinema, as I was driving her home, she suggested carrying on to Huntercomb Lane. We stopped eventually on Dorney Common and she said this was where she and Gregsten usually stopped.'

Interestingly, this suggests that Gregten and Storie were not strangers to that cornfiled and that other people may have got to know their regular courting spots.

[Natalie Severn]

Julie----that actually fits with something I read about Valerie having another male friend from her office who she also went to the cornfield with .Its a possibility Julie---must give this some serious thought !
Best Wishes and Goodnight!
Norma

Quite right Julie,thanks for finding the exact quote re my above response .And I would add that the crime Valerie endured was horrific and should never have happened to anyone, anywhere, whatever they decided to do or not do, there or anywhere else or with whoever .I will also repeat that I believe Valerie to have done her very best to identify her rapist with regards to both identity parades and that she survived her ordeal with immense dignity and strength .Having given some thought to this over the past day or two ,though, I still wonder whether a court of law which deals with testimony on oath ,was right in this case to conceal the nature of her relationship with Gregsten .
Alphon was insistent in his "confessions" that his "mission" had been to "wipe out immorality" [all nonsense] but that is the only reason why it may have been important-it gave Alphon a motivation for the attack.
Alphon,who was after all the first prime police suspect,subsequently made a big deal about his motivation for the attack being all about a central figure employing him to carry out the attack.As Alphon had been in room 24 after Hanratty had been there ie he was allocated room 24 on the 22nd August "after" Hanratty had left it has always seemed to me that the gun cartridge cases found there on the 11th September ,that played such an important role in Hanratty"s conviction,could have been left there by Alphon who had been in the room after Hanratty ---even though he later went down and demanded another room saying he didnt like Room 24.
The gun found under the back seat of the bus [?], the gun cartridge cases found in room 24 and Valerie"s second "identification' where she selected Hanratty with his dyed tangerine coloured hair and Cockney accent were what actually sent him to the gallows.
My contention remains.Hanratty was innocent and the "victim" of a "frame up",
Best
Norma