a6 murder

[caz]

Given that the car was clear of any forensic evidence, it is not impossible to suggest that the rapist may not have desposited anything on Valerie's underwear. I was not meaning any disrespect to Valerie.

But Limehouse, this is rubbish. There were two clear semen deposits on the victim's underwear following the crime in 1961, so how do you explain this if the rapist's wasn't one of them and Hanratty's DNA was only deposited later via a contamination event? The only possibility you were suggesting here involved the victim having two sexual partners before the crime, which would still leave one of the semen deposits doing an unlikely disappearing act at some point, leaving Hanratty's DNA in its place to face the music 40 years on.

If you honestly can't see how speculation at this level is disrespectful to Valerie, if not libellous, there's little more anyone can say.

Love,

Caz
X

[Graham]

Hi Caz,

there has been a tendency, and not just recently, to cast aspersions upon the evidence of Valerie Storie in the same way as one might cast aspersions upon the evidence of someone who was a witness at an inquest of a Ripper victim. The basic difference is that all who were around in 1888 are no longer with us, but VS most certainly is. I don't know if she ever looks at this thread (somehow I'd doubt it) but if she does I feel she may well be somewhat justifiably pissed off.

More than once I've counselled that posters should take a degree of care in what they write concerning living witnesses to this and other crimes, and I do so again.

Graham

[Victor]

There were two clear semen deposits on the victim's underwear following the crime in 1961, so how do you explain this if the rapist's wasn't one of them and Hanratty's DNA was only deposited later via a contamination event? The only possibility you were suggesting here involved the victim having two sexual partners before the crime, which would still leave one of the semen deposits doing an unlikely disappearing act at some point, leaving Hanratty's DNA in its place to face the music 40 years on.

Actually Caz, the only possibility I can see is if the second person who had sex with Valerie that day was Hanratty, and then the rapist who didn't ejaculate. That would account for the results obtained but is patently ridiculous.

KR,
Vic.

[RonIpstone]

Whilst surfing the net I came across the Channel 4 production made by Bob Woffinden in 1994 or 1995. It is on Youtube and is in 13 Chapters, the 12th of which I give this link Bob's DNA.

The 11th Chapter had concluded with a piece on the 1994 complete submission of fresh evidence to the Home Office and the Home Secretary's decision to allow DNA testing on the remaining exhibits. Chapter 12 continues this theme with the confidence that a solution could be found being expressed by the expert appointed by the Hanratty family, Dr Patrick Lincoln.

Dr Lincoln seems well up in the world of DNA profiling, a quick google reveals this Dr Paddy Lincoln, and he was certainly still in the DNA profiling game in 2002 when the Hanratty appeal reached its denouement. Yet when we look at the Court's judgement at paragraph 120 we notice that Dr Lincoln has been ditched as a defence expert for a Dr Matin Evison who was (and may still be) a senior lecturer in Forensic Biological Anthropology in the Department of Forensic Anthropology at The Medico Legal Centre in Sheffield.

The Hanratty solicitors were Bindman & Co who were based in London. I ask myself, "why should Bindmans change experts mid-stream?" The only answer I can come up with is that Dr Lincoln did not deliver the goods, and came to the same conclusion that the prosecution experts had, namely that Jim did it. The inference is also that Bindmans had to go as far as Sheffield to get a witness that was in any sense prepared to be favourable to the cause.

[caz]

Hi All,

I wish Hanratty defenders would make up their minds whether:

his DNA was correctly identified on the victim's knicker fragment, but only there due to secondary contamination, or:

the DNA was incorrectly identified as Hanratty's by tests that were inherently unreliable.

They certainly can't have it both ways, and it has to be remembered that the profile identified as Hanratty's matched the single profile obtained from the mucous stained hanky, which in turn matched with his exhumed body.

In going the contamination route, they must first accept that the tests reliably picked up Hanratty (along with Valerie and one other male - Gregsten). They then have to explain the failure to pick up any trace of the rapist, while picking up the three remaining major players: the two victims and the suspect who went on to be convicted.

If they cannot accept the reliability of the DNA findings, then they have to kiss the secondary contamination theory goodnight.

Those of us who accept the appeal judgement (some of us reluctantly) do so because we can't see anything left to be reconciled: we accept that the rapist's semen was there, large as life, in 1961, along with the victim's vaginal fluid and semen from her murdered lover. Logically, if one element was obtainable forty years later, all three should have been, and we would expect secondary contamination from an uninvolved fourth party to have shown up as an uninvited element or at least a jarring note requiring explanation. In the event, we got the three expected elements, no fewer, no more.

Contamination theorists rely on secondary contamination being indistinguishable from the 'guilty' variety, and therefore being mistaken for it in this case. But that would work both ways, because even if some Hanratty DNA could have made its way onto the knickers at a later date, it wouldn't make him innocent. The semen already present still had to come from someone, and was no less likely to have come from Hanratty, regardless of how his intimate samples were handled subsequently. He was after all the prime suspect and had been picked out by the victim.

The guilty party left his identity behind, and one + one + one = three, whichever way you look at it.

Love,

Caz
X

[Natalie Severn]

I was travelling to Euston on the 27 bus from Notting Hill the other day and when we arrived at Paddington I noticed we were behind a 36 bus which had come from Maida Vale.Just as in 1961,you can get on the 36 ,like the 36A,at the end of Sutherland Avenue where the Vienna Hotel was.Alphon told Ins.Acott that after he left the Vienna Hotel around mid-day on 23 rd August, he went to Paddington.
Later on,in his "confessions",Alphon kept referring to the sacked "night club bouncer" , Charles France ,who he alleged was part of the "frame-up" of Hanratty .It was reported in The Times in May 1967,that Alphon had stated he had met Charles France and given him the gun and that it was France who had planted the Gun under the back seat of the 36A bus,wrapped in Hanratty"s handkerchief[rather than throw the gun in the sea France chose to frame Hanratty with the gun.This would have been easy for France to have done as a]his wife washed Hanratty"s clothes for him and b]France"s Swiss Cottage flat was less than a 10 minute walk from the 36A bus stop.
Alphon certainly looks to me as though he is in this somewhere,from having led the police to the Vienna Hotel and Nudds ,in the first place,to not being able to let go of his association with the A6 case.He is always very careful though to avoid being charged with the murder again, getting a lot of publicity----but putting confusing errors in his statements, so he can"t be re-charged .

A bit like Moat,Alphon comes across as a complete narcissist-but a whole lot cleverer than Moat it seems like!

Caz,
Regarding the exhibits you refer to,-not only is contamination a strong possibility but " it is impossible to draw any firm conclusion as to the current evidential integrity of the exhibits of cloth samples as the known [and unknown ] aspects of the history of these items must be held in the balance".
Added to the above [1999] commission"s statements, the much more recent debate about whether in fact LCN DNA test is a reliable tool at all when such "mixed samples "[of MG"s VS"s and the rapists semen/ body fluid"s] are being subjected to Low Copy Number DNA testing, and the entire testing mechanism comes up for much more stringent debate as to them having any reliability whatsoever,
Best
Norma

[RonIpstone]

It was reported in The Times in May 1967,that Alphon had stated he had met Charles France and given him the gun and that it was France who had planted the Gun under the back seat of the 36A bus,wrapped in Hanratty"s handkerchief[rather than throw the gun in the sea France chose to frame Hanratty with the gun.This would have been easy for France to have done as a]his wife washed Hanratty"s clothes for him and b]France"s Swiss Cottage flat was less than a 10 minute walk from the 36A bus stop.
Alphon certainly looks to me as though he is in this somewhere,from having led the police to the Vienna Hotel and Nudds ,in the first place,to not being able to let go of his association with the A6 case.He is always very careful though to avoid being charged with the murder again, getting a lot of publicity----but putting confusing errors in his statements, so he can"t be re-charged .

So DS Acott was right to go after Alphon in the first instance?

It is all becoming clear to me now. Alphon having murdered Gregsten gives the murder weapon to Dixie with instructions to throw the same into the Briney deep. Dixie, being the unreliable but lovable cove that he undoubtedly was, decides to frame up his old mate and sparring partner, Jim 'Ginger' Hanratty and deposits the shooter and ammo under the back seat of the No. 36A.

Dixie was aware that Hanratty was in Liverpool at the time of the A6 Murder but must have had a good idea that Ginger would not be able to establish an alibi, most probably Ginger would not meet up with any of his Scouse acquaintances and would bugger off to the coast for fun and and frolics in North Wales.

Now then, did Dixie know that Alphon had stayed, albeit on different nights, in the same hotel, the Vienna, as Hanratty had? If Dixie did know, then there was a danger, which almost happened, that the cops would go after Alphon rather than Hanratty. Would this be a risk that Dixie could take?

On the other hand if Dixie did not know that Alphon and Hanratty had stayed in the Vienna, then this becomes another coincidence in a case sagging with them.

Another theory is that Dixie planted the gun and ammo under the back seat of the bus, as per Theory 1 above, but then has a change of heart and decides to frame Alphon by planting the spent cartridge cases in a room in the Vienna, not realising that Hanratty had stayed there; then, horror of horrors, realisation dawns that Hanratty had stayed in the very same room (Room 24) in which France had left the spent cartridges. It then hits Dixie straight between the eyes what he has done, he has framed Hanratty twice. What can he do? He can ask a favour of Nudds, and ask Jazzer to alter the rooming arrangements so that Alphon's name moves up the frame into poll position and is the cops' prime suspect.

I am not sure how Dixie did the trick with the DNA and will have to give this further thought.

[Victor]

He [Alphon] is always very careful though to avoid being charged with the murder again, getting a lot of publicity----but putting confusing errors in his statements, so he can"t be re-charged.

Hi Norma,

How do you tell the difference between deliberately making confusing errors, and being wrong because he was not involved and just doesn't know?

KR,
Vic.

[caz]

Caz,
Regarding the exhibits you refer to,-not only is contamination a strong possibility but " it is impossible to draw any firm conclusion as to the current evidential integrity of the exhibits of cloth samples as the known [and unknown ] aspects of the history of these items must be held in the balance".
Added to the above [1999] commission"s statements, the much more recent debate about whether in fact LCN DNA test is a reliable tool at all when such "mixed samples "[of MG"s VS"s and the rapists semen/ body fluid"s] are being subjected to Low Copy Number DNA testing, and the entire testing mechanism comes up for much more stringent debate as to them having any reliability whatsoever,
Best
Norma

Right, Nats, so did you not understand what I was saying about the mutual exclusivity between the ability to pick up secondary contamination traces and reliably identify them as Hanratty's, and the inability to make any reliable identifications whatsoever?

In short, you are saying there was a 'strong possibility' that the Hanratty DNA they picked up was not from the rape but from subsequent mishandling of the evidence, but in the same breath you want to reject the possibility of any DNA being reliably identified as Hanratty's.

So do you accept that they picked up Hanratty DNA from the knickers and hanky or not?

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Hi Ron,

I enjoyed your post.

Poor Alphon wasn't quite right upstairs, was he?

I suppose that makes him perfect to set up. After all, Hanratty's trusty supporters know a bit about creating miscarriages of justice, don't they? All you need is someone a bit 'special', who will confess anything to anyone for the right price or another headline.

No DNA? So what? Victim didn't know Alphon from Adam? No problem.

Let the loony swing anyway.

Love,

Caz
X

[Graham]

IMHO the Peter Alphon we all know and love was largely the creation of his own personal Svengali, Jean Justice. Aided, of course, by PLA himself who recognised a good thing when he saw one. I feel sure that Foot and Woffinden both understood this, but as they were in the business of trying to prove that Jim didn't do it, their books would've been rather colourless if they hadn't been able to point the finger at someone else.

Alphon certainly wasn't quite right, but his coincidental presence in the case must have been an absolute godsend for Justice in his crusade against the Establishment, or however he described it.

Graham

[Limehouse]

[QUOTE=Natalie Severn;140105]I was travelling to Euston on the 27 bus from Notting Hill the other day and when we arrived at Paddington I noticed we were behind a 36 bus which had come from Maida Vale.Just as in 1961,you can get on the 36 ,like the 36A,at the end of Sutherland Avenue where the Vienna Hotel was.Alphon told Ins.Acott that after he left the Vienna Hotel around mid-day on 23 rd August, he went to Paddington.



Hi Norma,

You might find this interesting:http://news.bbc.co.uk/local/london/h...00/8806170.stm


Julie

[Natalie Severn]

Right, Nats, so did you not understand what I was saying about the mutual exclusivity between the ability to pick up secondary contamination traces and reliably identify them as Hanratty's, and the inability to make any reliable identifications whatsoever?

In short, you are saying there was a 'strong possibility' that the Hanratty DNA they picked up was not from the rape but from subsequent mishandling of the evidence, but in the same breath you want to reject the possibility of any DNA being reliably identified as Hanratty's.

So do you accept that they picked up Hanratty DNA from the knickers and hanky or not?

Ofcourse I accept that Hanratty"s DNA was picked up,Caz.What I was referring to was that since the latest discoveries [by Budowle in particular] that LCN DNA testing is not a reliable instrument for use in courts of law ,in particular ,that is,when " mixed samples"of body fluids are being tested---and in this particular case ,what was being tested was a mixture of 2 23 rd August 1961 seminal fluids and vaginal fluid -as well as very possibly ,1961 seminal fluid that may also have arrived from Hanratty"s green trousers which we know were in the lab the day before VS"s knickers and slips were subjected to analysis.In 2002 the cloth sample could therefore have become contaminated way back then,mixed together with later secondary seminal fluid that could have arrived via storage . And I am adding that if, in view of todays experts in LCN DNA testing,questioning the entire reliability of LCN DNA testing of such mixed samples, then it may be necessary to go right back and question the reliability of the 1961 pathologists ability to determine from the composition of several patches of mixed semen who left what type of semen on the knickers---eg did Hanratty"s seminal fluid arrive on the knickers from a contaminated source-,and are all those 1961 "mixed samples of several body fluids" still on the fragment of cloth , in pristine enough condition for reliable testing? Were crucial patches left on the cut off cloth that is now lost?
Barry George was freed by forensic evidence that was microscopic and that microscopic speck of forensic evidence arrived in his jacket pocket simply by having been hung up next to a policeman"s jacket containing gun cartridge residue.
The handkerchief I suspect,may well have arrived wrapped around the gun by another person,eg Alphon or possibly by the sacked night club bouncer ,Charles France, either of whom could have placed it under the back seat of the 36A bus to incriminate Hanratty.To me it looks like it could have been a plan ,that went badly wrong and resulted in a totally different outcome than that anticipated .Alphon plays his cards dangerously but ,like the compulsive and often successful gambler he was, he seemed always to make big bucks out of the enterprises he undertook and then lost it all and began all over again----and he always escaped the clink!

Will get back to the other points later - I am off to see Placido Domingo at the Royal Opera House tonight and need to get a move on!
Cheers
Norma

[Natalie Severn]

Hi Norma,

You might find this interesting:http://news.bbc.co.uk/local/london/h...00/8806170.stm


Julie

Thanks-that was a great read Julie-its true-the 36 bus run covers huge swathes of London"s diversity-and what a fun ride by the looks of it! It reminds me of a poem by Michael Rosen about how London changes as you cross it...I heard him reciting it at the Bishopsgate Institute last year but I"ve forgotten its title---will look it up!That was a great evening---Paul Foot would have loved it,bless him!
Cheers
Norma

[Victor]

Ofcourse I accept that Hanratty"s DNA was picked up,Caz.What I was referring to was that since the latest discoveries [by Budowle in particular] that LCN DNA testing is not a reliable instrument for use in courts of law ,in particular ,that is,when " mixed samples"of body fluids are being tested---and in this particular case ,what was being tested was a mixture of 2 23 rd August 1961 seminal fluids and vaginal fluid -as well as very possibly ,1961 seminal fluid that may also have arrived from Hanratty"s green trousers] which we know were in the lab the day before VS"s knickers and slips were subjected to analysis.

Hi Norma,

That's Caz's point, either the red bit is true or the green bit, they are mutually exclusive!

KR,
Vic.