a6 murder

[Graham]

Hi Julie,

I don't believe this case was thoroughly investigated, I think some of the evidence was fabricated or manipulated, there are far too many unexplained aspects to the case - for example why there is an absence of any forensic evidence in the car from the attacker WHOEVER HE WAS.

Good point. If the report of the forensic investigation of the car was ever made public, I've never seen it. Lack of fingerprints I can understand - JH either wore gloves or was very careful not to touch a hard surface. Fibre from his clothes, maybe mud or dirt from his shoes on the floor of the car I find harder to get my head round. However - I do know someone who worked in a police forensic lab and who is old enough to recall the A6 Case. He told me that a thorough good hoovering of the interior of a car would, so far as early 1960's forensic technology was concerned, effectively remove virtually all evidence (apart from fingerprints). He also said that the police in 1961 would certainly have applied the adhesive-tape test to the upholstery, to pick up any fibre from clothes; he said they would have used a very powerful vacuum cleaner to collect any dirt, dust or other debris from the floor. If they found zero forensics to connect the car to a suspect, then that is because the car was very thoroughly cleaned. Yes, this absence of forensics most certainly is an unexplained aspect of the case, but of course it's the absence of forensic evidence of anyone other than VS, MG and MG's aunts (presumably) who were regular users of the car. No Hanratty, no Alphon. Yet we have it from Hanratty's own lips that he was careful not to leave fingerprints behind during a burglary (but not always careful enough), so maybe I could go along with a possible scenario that after the crime he managed somehow to very thoroughly clean the interior of the car. (I can hear the squeals of protest already...).

Ron, why do you keep referring to the Bedford jury as 'dim', and so forth? Are people from Bedfordshire notorious for being dim? Or what?

Graham

[Natalie Severn]

There were 12 fingerprints taken from the car in Avondale Crescent. We do not know who they belonged to at all. You can bet that if one had been Hanratty's then the world would have known about it.........



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

Nimmo and cohorts had never looked at evidence from Avondale Crescent, the evidence of Trower and Blackhall et al ( as in the best traditions of police practice , that was not their brief at the time) and examined it critically which Matthews must have concluded on balance has discrepancies at the very least in their statements compared to the actual evidence he uncovered.

Clearly John [post 5583] has read up on what was in the car viz finger prints etc ----but where is this information to be found I wonder? Some of the withheld information concerned the mileage that the car did that night.Apparently in excess of two hundred miles were clocked up and police knew this because Michael Gregsten kept meticulous records of his mileage in a logbook which they examined.Also withheld from the trial were a number of sightings some as far away as Derby.The mileage covered,had it been known in court,would have cast doubt on the claims of the Trower and Blackhall witnesses to have seen Hanratty driving the car near the Ilford side street at seven in the morning.

[Graham]

Re: fingerprints in car. Woffinden, paperback edition, Pg 177:

Under cross-examination by the defence, a senior photographer at Scotland Yard conceded that some photographs showed fingerprint marks on the windows of the abandoned Morris Minor car; and, much more importantly, that a further twelve photographs not shown in evidence showed suspected fingerprints.

The photographs referred to above were not shown at the trial.

I am not suggesting that John has confused "12 fingerprints" with "12 photographs", but there is a possibility that he did.

Fingerprints were most certainly found in the car, but they belonged to the people who had legitimately used the car, i.e., Gregsten, Valerie, at least one of Gregsten's female relations, and possibly those of person or persons that they'd given a lift to.

The mileage of the car will be argued over until the cows come home. I suggest that Leonard Miller's book is consulted regarding this.

Graham

[Natalie Severn]

I've no idea where this quote comes from, but he definitely said "The wrong man was not hanged".

.

Well then its very strange that he had this to say ten days after the 2002 appeal was rejected,

from transcript of the BBC Panorama programme of 16 May 2002:

MICHAEL SHERRARD QC (James Hanratty's trial barrister):" I really couldn't bring myself to take in that those who had concealed the evidence in a capital case could have been as wicked as that."


There isnt even a hint that he thought such a thing as you are claiming at this point in time so if you cannot quote a source then its unlikely Michael Sherrard QC made such a remark as you claim.

[Graham]

JAMES HANRATTY'S BARRISTER TAKES THE STAND
Michael Sherrard QC, the barrister who defended James Hanratty in one of the most controversial trials of the 20th century, came to City to talk to members of the Law Society about his experiences during the famous Hanratty trial.

The case was tried 40 years ago, and Hanratty was hanged for murder. In 1999 the Criminal Cases Review Commission referred the case to the Court of Appeal as DNA taken from members of Hanratty's family was analysed to test its compatibility with DNA samples collected from the crime scene. The results were inconclusive, and Hanratty was exhumed so that samples could be taken directly from his body.

Mr Sherrard's talk was fascinating, and touched on some of the most fundamental precepts of the law. He discussed the circumstances surrounding the original trial, and remarked, "If police officers choose what they'll disclose and what they won't, it becomes trial by police".

The recent DNA tests would seem to prove conclusively that Hanratty did in fact commit the crime for which he was executed. Mr Sherrard said, "The wrong man was not hanged. That was an immense relief to me." However, his opinion of the original prosecution remains unchanged. "The evidence was too weak to justify conviction. I still hold that view."

So, have things changed for the better since that infamous trial 40 years ago? Mr Sherrard believes that the legal system has been substantially improved: "I've got more faith in the police today than I did then."


Suggest you check Wikipedia, James Hanratty, and you'll find the above quote in 'sources'.

Graham

[Natalie Severn]

"in the past few years" LCN testing has been vindicated, Norma is referring to 2006 reports.


.

So where is your evidence.Can you cite this more recent research that you claim exists and that contradicts Budowle"s 2006 research that suggested grave doubts about the reliability of LCN DNA testing?Don"t forget Budowle"s research was four years ahead of any done in the UK for the reliability of the 2002 tests-------only no such research took place then here, in the UK did it---or in 2006?
So where , when and by whom was research done in the UK that states the FBI research done for it by Dr Bruce Budowle was wrong?

[Victor]

I do not think that the two propositions, the first that the trial was fatally flawed and the second that Hanratty was guilty, are mutually exclusive.

Hi Ron,

You are absolutely right, Hanratty was guilty and the investigation was biased, but I do not think that it was "fatally flawed", certainly lacking by modern standards, although you seem to agree that the judge was scrupulously fair to the point of...

The judge summed up for the defence and most commentators thought that the judge had come to his own conclusion that the prosecution had not made out its case.

A person is entitled to argue that Hanratty's conviction should be overturned on the basis that his trial was fatally flawed, even though he might have been guilty as charged.

Yes they are, but applying current trial regulations to a case that was handled almost 50 years ago will inevitably lead to discrepancies.

I agree that Norma or Natalie and others go further and argue that Hanratty was not guilty in the sense that beyond reasonable doubt he did not do it and some go further still and say that Alphon was the culprit. Yet the last word we shall have on this case put before the court was that undoubtedly Alphon was not guilty. The argument advanced by Hanratty family lawyers was that his trial was fatally flawed. Like it or lump it the Court of Appeal has pronounced on that one in favour of the trial process of 1962.

The black cap came out because the 11 man jury unanimously found Hanratty guilty, as Caz's question has provoked the responce that all the JimIsInnocent people seems to insist that had the LCN tests shown Alphon's profile along with Valerie's and Gresten's instead of Hanratty's and no other then that would not be conclusive evidence that Alphon was guilty and Hanratty innocent (although I would disagree strongly) then Alphon is unquestionably completely innocent "beyond reasonable doubt".

To put it another way, if the DNA tests had revealed some genetic profile of an unknown subject, i.e. the rapist, then the Court of Appeal would have overturned the conviction.

I think that is the most concrete statement on this thread.

The court would have pronounced that this was a weak case based on suspect identification evidence and the DNA had destroyed any faith in the integrity and safety of the verdict. Their lordships might even have admonished the jury for their lack of intelligence.

And that is a highly likely prospect.

In my view this was a weak case rendered almost certain by the absence of DNA of the rapist, unless of course the rapist was Hanratty.

Here we disagree, but then when you march in to the hypothetical arena then that will always be problematic, especially when the consequences are someone's life.

In other words, if someone believed as strongly as Foot did that Hanratty was innocent then it's no surprise that he went to the far edge of a fart to contest the incontrovertable.

KR,
Vic.

[Natalie Severn]

Well I have a very great regard for Michael Sherrard and although I respect his acceptance of the 2002 Judgment ,I am also mindful that as a QC and as a highly respected member of the establishment, he is guided by the process of law.
Many Thanks Graham for posting this ,

[Victor]

I quoted Hanratty"s trial barrister,Michael Sherrard QC,who stated that no blood, fibre or fingerprint was ever found to link Hanratty with the crime.

Even less was found to link Alphon to the crime, nor anyone else either.

The Criminal Cases Review Commission,the CCRC uncovered enough serious flaws in the original police inquiry to justify reopening the case.

The CCRC discovered nothing, they investigated 17 grounds of unfairness identified by Woffinden's submission.

The new evidence included discoveries revealed by a forensic technique developed since the trial-The ESDA test.Dr David Baxendale[Forensic Document Examiner] had just discovered "serious discrepancies" in Det Supt Acott"s and Det Oxford"s Two interviews with Hanratty.

1 of the 17 grounds was supportted by ESDA testing, and the ESDA testing was inconclusive.

It was in the context of speaking about these and other" fatal "discoveries, that Michael Sherrard QC made these comments quoted in the 16th May 2002 Panorama programme.[ie after the results of these Low copy number DNA tests were made known:

In dismissing these ridiculous allegations, the poor victim was finally released from 40 years of absolutely unwarranted, heinous and downright evil allegations that she conspired to murder a hapless, dim-witted burglar.

So Re your question Caz, ---at this present time I am trying not to believe that such absolutely shocking things seem to have happened as these "rearranged notes" but in the light of such shocking discoveries I would reserve all judgment until I know more about the reliability of LCN DNA tests that were carried out incriminating Hanratty through a scrap of cloth that was undoubtedly contaminated with Hanratty"s "copious" body fluid [I bet the prison laundry was visited on more than one occasion ] and some old hanky that had made a magical "reappearance" having mysteriously "disappeared" for half a century only to have been "rediscovered" somewhere in Bedford Police Dept since Hanratty was sentenced to death there---perhaps the latest and most remarkable "co-incidence" in a case of truly astonishing and extraordinary "coincidences ---the DNA that would at last solve everything---and get this Hanratty problem buried for good-.

[btw -regarding Alphon---I would feel exactly the same as I do about the Hanratty case actually,despite him being their first suspect and despite him having confessed to the crime.

Wow, what a magnificent climb down, now Norma needs to investigate LCN further before saying it's wrong, makes spurious allegations about Hanratty's prison laundry being "appropriated" for illegitimate purposes, and agrees Alphon is innocent.

KR,
Vic.

[Natalie Severn]

Re: fingerprints in car. Woffinden, paperback edition, Pg 177:

Under cross-examination by the defence, a senior photographer at Scotland Yard conceded that some photographs showed fingerprint marks on the windows of the abandoned Morris Minor car; and, much more importantly, that a further twelve photographs not shown in evidence showed suspected fingerprints.

The photographs referred to above were not shown at the trial.

I am not suggesting that John has confused "12 fingerprints" with "12 photographs", but there is a possibility that he did.

Fingerprints were most certainly found in the car, but they belonged to the people who had legitimately used the car, i.e., Gregsten, Valerie, at least one of Gregsten's female relations, and possibly those of person or persons that they'd given a lift to.

The mileage of the car will be argued over until the cows come home. I suggest that Leonard Miller's book is consulted regarding this.

Graham

Thankyou for providing yet more information on the forensic contents of the car.
What this seems to demonstrate is that the car could not have been so thoroughly cleaned as has been suggested.Moreover, a rape on the back seat of a tiny car like the Morris Minor must have left traces - hairs , fibres, body fluids,as well as blood spurt from Gregsten possibly.Hairs and fibres were found in the file, yet in 1961 these hairs and fibres were not matched to any from Hanratty in the car apparently--- which is a bit strange..

[Graham]

Vic,

now listen - you lay off Norma, OK? She just thanked me for something. Three weeks ago she told me to piss off. We're getting there...

Graham

[Victor]

So where is your evidence.Can you cite this more recent research that you claim exists and that contradicts Budowle"s 2006 research that suggested grave doubts about the reliability of LCN DNA testing?Don"t forget Budowle"s research was four years ahead of any done in the UK for the reliability of the 2002 tests-------only no such research took place then here, in the UK did it---or in 2006?
So where , when and by whom was research done in the UK that states the FBI research done for it by Dr Bruce Budowle was wrong?

Reed\Reed and Garmson judgment. http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2009/2698.html

Caddy review which declared LCN "fit for purpose".

http://www.nio.gov.uk/goggins-welcomes-publication-of-caddy-review/media-detail.htm?newsID=15138

KR,
Vic.

[Natalie Severn]

Reed\Reed and Garmson judgment. http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2009/2698.html

Caddy review which declared LCN "fit for purpose".

http://www.nio.gov.uk/goggins-welcomes-publication-of-caddy-review/media-detail.htm?newsID=15138

KR,
Vic.

Will read it up tomorrow.

[Victor]

Will read it up tomorrow.

For the Caddy Review, see this too...

http://www.cps.gov.uk/news/press_releases/101_08/

KR,
Vic.

[Natalie Severn]

I am still mindful of this statement by Michael Sherrard which I suggest Victor reads carefully:

MICHAEL SHERRARD: The public were cheated, the system was cheated. I don't regard myself as having been cheated. I, I'm really an intermediate player, but Hanratty was hanged. He was cheated. If the other material that was not disclosed to us would have made the difference, so it, it's fair to say that there seems to be a strong argument at least for saying that the trial was fatally flawed and the word fatal has a real significance in this context.