a6 murder

[Limehouse]

Hanratty spent some time with a prostitute in a room over a club behind the Palace Theatre. He was a regualr client. He then returned to the Rehearsal Club for a drink and then realised it was too late to get a train to Liverpool. He hailed a taxi and asked the driver to take him to a hotel 'I had no particualr place in mind'. He ended up in Maida Vale because there was no room at the first hotel.

The choice of the original hotel was the taxi driver's, not Hanratty, and as there was no room available at that hotle, the manager arranged a room at an associate hotel. Therefore, Hanratty could not have known he would end up in Maida Vale and thuis close to Paddington.

You seem to be pointing us toward a premeditated event, Ron?

[caz]

As a result of my experience I'm a great believer in the old saying 'anyone who wants to be a policeman can't be trusted in the job!'

Well done, DM, for demonstrating beyond all possible doubt why you can't be trusted to give an unbiased view of this case.

Love,

Caz
X

[RonIpstone]

You seem to be pointing us toward a premeditated event, Ron?

Hello Julie,

All that I am saying is that as a result of Jim taking a cab in Soho he ended up at the Broadway House Hotel in Portman Sq., about a 15 minute walk from Paddington Station, which by chance was the station that Hanratty walked to the following morning. Jim was sent to the Vienna by the full Broadway House and it was from the Vienna Hotel that Jim went to Paddington.

Looked at objectively these are not the actions of someone who wants to get a train from Euston to Liverpool. As Jim's cabbie took him to a hotel near Paddington and as Jim walked to Paddington, I conclude that Jim wanted a hotel near Paddington. There are were plenty of cheap hotels near Euston which would have been more suited to Jim's avowed purpose of going to the Pool the following day.

Ron

[caz]

Ofcourse I accept that Hanratty"s DNA was picked up,Caz…

Sorry I’ve been so long coming back to you, Nats. I hope you won’t put me on ignore because you wrote this ‘ages ago’.

Fine, so you presumably also accept that they were able to match up his DNA profile from the hanky (the only profile picked up) with one of the profiles picked up from the knicker fragment.

So far so reliable. That leaves you with the contamination theory.

But I’m not sure where you get this from:

…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…

What has the reliability of DNA testing to do with the ability back in 1961 to recognise two semen patches, and attribute the minor staining by its blood group to a sex act between the two victims, and the major one - identified as group O - to the rapist? What do you mean by ‘several’ patches? When are you suggesting that traces of semen from Hanratty’s trousers accidentally entered the mix to produce faulty results? Before or after the two semen patches were examined and blood typed? And are you not still left with the riddle of how and when the major group O staining from the rapist managed to extricate and absent itself from the rest of the mixture?

…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.

So presumably whoever obtained and handled one of Hanratty’s hankies for this purpose was both smart and fortunate, to pick an unwashed, mucous-stained item that would go on to produce just the one desired DNA profile forty years on, to add to the one transferred by accident to the victim’s underwear. Blimey, if it wasn’t for bad luck, our Jim would have had no luck at all, would he?

The knicker fragment kept 50 miles away in Lambeth was kept alongside other exhibits in the file discovered in 1991---but this is just one of the places where contamination of the knicker fragment could have happened over the years ,since the cloth sample could also more rapidly have become contaminated with Hanratty"s DNA way back in 1961 through the knickers from which it was excised having been placed on a surface where Hanratty"s green trousers had rested the previous day…

What do you mean by ‘over the years’? You now seem to be suggesting that minute semen traces from Hanratty’s trousers could have survived and somehow found their way onto the knicker fragment at any time between 1961 and 1991, to be picked up, successfully profiled and distinguished from those of the two victims, by hopelessly unreliable DNA testing techniques. Yet the same techniques failed - uniquely - to pick up the primary fluid left by the rapist?

…LCN DNA testing on the handkerchief,so long as it contained no mixed body fluids,was reliable[with the important proviso that the item itself,ie the hanky, could have been one of several of Hanratty"s handkerchiefs,kept over from his trial in Bedford-it could even have been the last hanky he blew his nose on before the noose was put around his neck.

Why the hell would they have kept one or more of Hanratty’s hankies with no known connection to the crime and get rid of the one found wrapped round the murder weapon? This is getting silly now. Yes, let’s presume, without any evidence or the least likelihood, that they somehow managed to dispose of both pieces of material evidence, which might have cleared Hanratty and incriminated someone else, but perfectly preserved the wrong hanky and the wrong portion of underwear, which - by cruel happenstance - had the convicted man’s name all over them and delivered him up to order.

Could you please decide where you want the corruption and lies to leave off and the rotten luck and incompetence to take over?

---the main reason why Hanratty"s conviction was upheld in the 2002 ruling was because of the information this DNA LCN testing was said to yield and which is now the subject of growing reservations by FBI scientists...

You keep saying this but it doesn’t reflect what the appeal judgement said about the DNA findings making a strong case even stronger; the final nail in the campaigner’s coffin, so to speak, or the prosecution’s belt and braces if you prefer. You can disagree as strongly as you like that the case was ever a strong one, but you can’t keep claiming that the DNA swung it when that’s not what was actually said.

CONCLUSIONS
Caution should be undertaken when attempting LCN typing. The success rate is low; often the results
cannot be interpreted or are meaningless for the case. The method cannot be used for exculpatory
purposes. However, for single source samples where exogenous DNA can be removed and for typing of
human remains, LCN typing may be applicable. While there have been some dedicated efforts to exploit
LCN typing, primary efforts still should be to reduce stochastic effects on minute evidence samples.

If the success rate is low, that means there are some successes. This one is a classic example unless you can show where it failed. If the results often can’t be interpreted or are meaningless for the case, that means that often they can be interpreted and will be meaningful. Again, this one is a classic example where the results are easily interpreted and entirely meaningful in relation to the details of the crime and the individuals associated with it.

The method itself cannot be used to eliminate a suspect, but the results in this case leave little room for Alphon or anyone else. They got three matching profiles from the convicted man’s human remains, his hanky and the victim’s underwear, and not a single profile from any other potentially guilty party. The only other profiles were the ones they expected - from the two victims in the case.

Love,

Caz
X

[Natalie Severn]

Hello all

I'm afraid I can't take seriously the police allegations about Hanratty's 'perverted sexual practices'. It's very common for the cops to smear suspects by spreading false information, or to imply that they have damning evidence that would have blown the jury's socks off if only they'd been allowed to submit it.

DM

Actually Dupplin, the allegation wasnt about Hanratty"s perverted sexual "practices" but about him owning magazines and other literature depicting kinky behaviour.But any psychologist today will tell you that there is a vast difference between people owning and looking at kinky pictures and those people acting out what they see in them .
Cheers,
Norma

[Natalie Severn]

The method itself cannot be used to eliminate a suspect, but the results in this case leave little room for Alphon or anyone else. They got three matching profiles from the convicted man’s human remains, his hanky and the victim’s underwear, and not a single profile from any other potentially guilty party. The only other profiles were the ones they expected - from the two victims in the case.

Look Caz,

As others have expressed the desire to move on from the DNA debate I think you had better find someone else to discuss it with after today,as I dont want to be accused of monopolising the thread with the DNA debate.

I would however remind you that Michael Sherrard ,Hanratty"s lawyer, still continues to remind people that during the trial there was actually a total lack of forensic evidence to link Hanratty with the crime:

not a single fibre; not a single hair ;not a single finger print ;

nothing whatever in the Morris Minor to fit Hanratty with the crime -yet the killer spent six hours in the car where a murder and the rape took place!

Moreover, after phoning the police, Hanratty immediately offered Acott his case of clothes to examine that he had left at Louise Anderson"s . Later when the police interviewed Hanratty, he freely offered his hair,blood and saliva samples--something you may remember Alphon had refused to do.

John Justice who was at the entire trial with his barrister friend Fox, tells of how Hanratty"s exhibits and Valerie Storie"s exhibits were all put into the same box at the trial.They were taken away and brought back again each day with the investigating officer having to display it all on a table-the investigating officer apparently wore no gloves and the underwear,handkerchief were placed alongside each other on the table,each day. Obviously they were not being hindered by any DNA guidelines in 1961 as it hadnt been discovered -so any talk about the LCN DNA fairtesting of these items, clearly likely to have suffered much contamination ,seems deeply suspicious, if not patently ridiculous ---no matter what those who tested the hanky and fragment of cloth might say----I will answer with that delightful quote by MRD, ---"They would say that wouldnt they?"
Anyway,lets not monopolise this thread any further.We are clearly not going to get very far anyway,
Cheers
Norma

[Natalie Severn]

Looked at objectively these are not the actions of someone who wants to get a train from Euston to Liverpool.

Ron

Well even the prosecution didn"t actually dispute that Hanratty had gone to Liverpool---but they insisted he had gone on the 21st of August after leaving the Vienna Hotel and had got the train back that same day arriving after 11 pm and at the hotel by midnight.They accepted the train journey to Liverpool because more witnesses had come forward to support Mrs Dinwoody"s statement.
However if they believed he had travelled on the 21st and not the 22nd August they then bring discredit on the statements of two of their own witnesses-Charles France and his daughter Carol .They both said he was at their house on the 21st and that Carol remembered it because of a dental appointment.

[RonIpstone]

I would however remind you that Michael Sherrard ,Hanratty"s lawyer, still continues to remind people that during the trial there was actually a total lack of forensic evidence to link Hanratty with the crime:

not a single fibre; not a single hair ;not a single finger print ;

That cannot be right because we know that the seminal fluid stains on Val's knickers tested as coming from a group O secretor, which Hanratty undoubtedly was, unfortunately about 35% of the population were likewise.

But we move on, and whereas in 1961-62 we could only determine the blood group, 40 years or so later the boffins can determine much more, namely that the seminal fluid stained knicker fragment contained the DNA of Jim Hanratty, and more to the point it did not have the DNA of anyone else who could have been the rapist murderer.

The trouble with this debate is that to a lesser or greater extent we are all in the dark here. None of us have seen the forensic lab's DNA report, and even if we had, none (very few) would have the expert knowledge to understand the report, let alone subject it to detailed criticism.

My acceptance of the DNA evidence is based on the fact that the appellate court accepted it, and, in truth, no real attack was made upon it by the Hanratty family's counsel or the expert instructed on their behalf. A suggestion was made that Hanratty's DNA, admittedly present, could have got there by contamination. This was not discounted by the prosecution, but the question remained, if Hanratty's DNA were present as a contaminant, where was the rapist's DNA?

Just to recap, the exhibit in question is a fragment of VS's knickers which had become stained with seminal fluid when she was raped. This revealed the rapist to be blood group O, a very common group, but not one to which Michael Gregsten had belonged. This was determined in August 1961, well before Hanratty came on the scene. The rapist/murderer's DNA must have been present in 1961.

The exhibit was rediscovered in 1991 and seems to have been subjected to inconclusive tests in March 1995 (presumably/obviously SGM procedure) and again in November 1997 using DNA amplification techniques. The latter producing profiles of (1) VS (2) MG and (3) JH. If JH had not been the rapist then where is the rapist's DNA? How has it disappeared when VS and MG's DNA have remained in tact and survived contamination by JH?

I am not saying that these questions are unanswerable, but they have not yet been answered by the Hanratty lawyers or experts, or by anyone else who has seen the DNA evidence and who has the appropriate expertise to comment thereon.

Hanratty's supporters say that he could not have been the murderer/rapist as he was in Rhyl at the time of the murder/rape because Mrs Jones says so. But VS and other eye witnesses say he was the murderer/rapist or/and the driver of 847 BHN on the morning of 23 August 1961. The DNA evidence supports Miss Storie.

To put it simply the Hanratty supporters need the evidence of a boffin to say how the rapist's DNA can vanish, as it must have, to the point of not being capable of detection. Bob Woffinden's recent piece in the Oldie to the effect that funding is required sounds pretty feeble.

[richardnunweek]

Hi All.
The difference between the Hanratty case , and Jack the Ripper, is one of them has been solved, obviously I refer to the former.
The main reason this case has remained of intrest over the years, is the plea from Hanratty of his innocence, and his families desire to clear his name.
'I am innocent dad, clear my name.'
How many men/women, have gone to the gallows protesting their innocence?
If you have just been sentenced to death, you have only an appeal to save you, and Hanratty could either have accepted his guilt, or fought head and tail to save his neck.
He did the latter, knowing his family would fight on his behalf.
'Be quiet will you , I am finking' , just about sums it up, and Hanratty gave it his best shot, however he was convicted and hung.
That along with Valeries conviction, and the DNA, is case closed in my opinion.
Regards Richard.

[Natalie Severn]

Ron --Maybe the rapists DNA was "eliminated" with a pair of scissors when Alphon was "eliminated" [and told to bugger off or "it was the loony bin for him"!]

[RonIpstone]

Originally Posted by RonIpstone

Looked at objectively these are not the actions of someone who wants to get a train from Euston to Liverpool on the morning of 22nd of August 1961.

Is perhaps what I should have written.

Ron

[Natalie Severn]

Originally Posted by RonIpstone

Looked at objectively these are not the actions of someone who wants to get a train from Euston to Liverpool on the morning of 22nd of August 1961.

Is perhaps what I should have written.

Ron

Gotcha Ron!

But do you not see that the evidence points to him having gone to Liverpool on 22nd. Look,if the prosecution agreed he appears to have indeed gone to Liverpool -but on 21st not 22nd,and their witnesses,the Frances said "hey no-he was with us that day" then it seems to follow, as night does day, that he went to Liverpool on 22nd as Hanratty claimed he did.
So this discussion about intention doesnt arise really.He may just have hoped to call on Louise Anderson in Paddington,---to do with collecting something first.

[RonIpstone]

Gotcha Ron!

But do you not see that the evidence points to him having gone to Liverpool on 22nd. Look,if the prosecution agreed he appears to have indeed gone to Liverpool -but on 21st not 22nd,and their witnesses,the Frances said "hey no-he was with us that day" then it seems to follow, as night does day, that he went to Liverpool on 22nd as Hanratty claimed he did.
So this discussion about intention doesnt arise really.He may just have hoped to call on Louise Anderson in Paddington,---to do with collecting something first.

Natalie or Norma,

Not so. Except to the limited extent mentioned later, it was not part of the prosecution case that Hanratty went to Liverpool on 21 August 1961.

The prosecution had the problem that part of Hanratty's alibi was supported by Mrs Dinwoodie, the lady in the sweetshop, who identified Hanratty as the man who had asked for directions on a day in August 1961, which she said was Monday 21st.

The prosecution case was that (1) the sweetshop directions request occurred on 21 August and either (2) despite Mrs Dinwoodie's identification, it was NOT Hanratty who asked for directions or (3)(and extremely remotely) if it had been Hanratty who made the request for directions, then the Frances' evidence about Hanratty being in their home on the afternoon of Monday 21 August was mistaken and wrong, and Hanratty had gone to Liverpool in the morning of 21 August and returned that same evening to be in the Vienna about midnight.

Paul Foot's book at pp 207-8 (1988 edition) has the relevant part of the prosecution's submission to the jury.

Ron

[Natalie Severn]

Hi Ron [or RonIpstone],
Hanratty"s movements on the 21st are that after leaving the France"s he went to Leicester Square left luggage sorted out stuff to take and sell up North which he put in a pig skin case ready to collect before he went to Euston,then he went on to the Rehearsal club , had a drink with Ann Pryce-then went for a sandwich and bought a racing paper,saw the runners for the evening mtg at Hendon dog track and at 6.45 decided to go to Hendon Dog Track, where he lost £70! He was left with £12-14.He left in a rush before the last race.Back to Leicester Square " left luggage" to pick up his pig skin case and then nipped round to see his friend the hooker , then back to the Rehearsal Club for another drink---all these places around Leicester Square being just a few minutes walk from each other.By 11.15 or so , realising it was too late to catch the overnight train to Liverpool , he took a taxi to Baker Streetto get a hotel for the night.Now the Broadway House Hotel was just off Baker Street, and Baker Street is spot on for getting to Euston either by bus or taxi, being only minutes away by either.
However,I think that having found himself allocated to the Vienna Hotel instead ,which is nearer to Paddington,and having become out of pocket through losing £70 on the dogs, he may well have thought about trying to sell some of his stuff to Louise Anderson who lived in Paddington-but thought better of it remembering she had told him she hadnt any money herself.Whatever the reason it doesnt seem remotely unreasonable to have either gone there by mistake or to see Mrs Anderson.

As for the Prosecution and Liverpool , they seemed able to accept the Liverpool story only if it happened on 21st -otherwise they were not prepared to wear it.

[RonIpstone]

However,I think that having found himself allocated to the Vienna Hotel instead ,which is nearer to Paddington,and having become out of pocket through losing £70 on the dogs, he may well have thought about trying to sell some of his stuff to Louise Anderson who lived in Paddington-but thought better of it remembering she had told him she hadnt any money herself.Whatever the reason it doesnt seem remotely unreasonable to have either gone there by mistake or to see Mrs Anderson.

Hi Natalie or Norma
Or from buying a gun.

As for the Prosecution and Liverpool , they seemed able to accept the Liverpool story only if it happened on 21st -otherwise they were not prepared to wear it.

Neither the prosecution nor the defence could accept Mrs Dinwoodie's evidence in its entirety. The prosecution said that it was likely to have been the wrong person identified by Mrs D; the defence said she had the wrong date. Both sides were forced to pick and choose.

Ron or RonIpstone