a6 murder

[RonIpstone]

3. You found Ron's little play amusing. That speaks volumes about you - and him.

Hi Julie,

I think that you have been rather harsh on my 'little play'.

I should point out that the work, my first as a playwright, was and is far from complete. I only published some parts of my play on Sunday night as I thought members of the forum might be interested in them. How anyone can be offended by this story about middle-Britain in the early 1960's is beyond me.

Ron

[Natalie Severn]

I am actually breaking my own rules by answering this post at my desk at work because I know it will bug me all day and distract me from my duties if I don't.

Vic,
Your opening comments to Derrick are disgraceful. You do not have any evidence to back your claims and in any case, you are hardly a font or original ideas yourself.

1. Hanratty was mentally defective? really? Well let's examine that claim. ONE doctor made this statement - apparently based on Hanratty's illiteracy and criminality. There is every possibility that Hanratty was dyslexic - a condition that impairs literacy skills not intelligence. IF Hanratty was mentally defective - they would never have hanged him as there would have been a case for diminished responsibility. Alphon displayed far more evidence of mentally impaired behaviour that went far deeper than a few phone calls. When he made his 'confession' in France he was no longer under the influence of Justice. Was this the behaviour or a mentally sound man? A few phone calls? A few? It was far more than that and they started BEFORE his association with Justice and were aimed at many people. How do you know he has not displayed any evidence of impaired behaviour in the last forty years?

2. The hanky may have been Hanratty's - no one is disputing that - but it does not automatically follow that Hanratty placed that hanky with the gun. There is no forensic evidence on the gun or the cartridges to link them with Hanratty and it does not take the brain of Britain to work out that the gun, hanky and cartidges could have been planted by someone wanting to incriminate Hanratty.

3. You found Ron's little play amusing. That speaks volumes about you - and him.

Now I've got that off my chest, I must get back to work.

A fine post Julie.
I want to add that in order to judge Hanratty"s intelligence one only has to read through the verbatim accounts of him in the Witness Box.Here is a relatively under educated young man of 24 ,who left school at 15, on trial for his life and "well up to the mark in repartee while maintaining a reasonable demeanour before the court against the brains of Mr Swanwick trained at Winchester ,University College Oxford and the Inner Temple."

He certainly had his wits about him if you read through the texts of his replies to Swanwick from the witness box.

[Natalie Severn]

Hi Derrick,

Just one of those things.....mmm.....kinda reminds me of that old Cole Porter classic made famous by Frank Sonata.

It's well worth bearing in mind here what Justice William Gorman had to say to the 11 man Bedford jury about Miss Storie's wrongful identification of Michael Clark....

"Supposing there had been no evidence on 24th September that would have exonerated the man who was picked out by Miss Storie on that date, how tragic the consequences might have been for someone else."

Yes James---Judge Justice Gormon did his level best to try and distill some understanding in them and point out the importance of accuracy in eye witness accounts and the importance of truthful evidence ---but the doltish Burghers of Bedford Jury ploughed on preferring to listen to tampered with witness evidence and half truths.

[Victor]

1. Hanratty was mentally defective? really? Well let's examine that claim. ONE doctor made this statement - apparently based on Hanratty's illiteracy and criminality. There is every possibility that Hanratty was dyslexic - a condition that impairs literacy skills not intelligence. IF Hanratty was mentally defective - they would never have hanged him as there would have been a case for diminished responsibility. Alphon displayed far more evidence of mentally impaired behaviour that went far deeper than a few phone calls. When he made his 'confession' in France he was no longer under the influence of Justice. Was this the behaviour or a mentally sound man? A few phone calls? A few? It was far more than that and they started BEFORE his association with Justice and were aimed at many people. How do you know he has not displayed any evidence of impaired behaviour in the last forty years?

Hi Julie,

I said 'Hanratty was diagnosed "mentally defective"', I did not say he was. I recall it was made after he collapsed in the streets of Brighton and had nothing to do with criminality nor illiteracy. Hanratty himself opted not to enter a plea of diminished responsibility because doing so would involve him pleading guilty.

Alphon has no such diagnosis, and any speculation about his mental condition is just speculation. I don't know for certain that he has not displayed any evidence of impaired behaviour in the last 40 years, but again I asked for any evidence that he has to support the negative speculation - innocent until proven guilty and all that.

2. The hanky may have been Hanratty's - no one is disputing that - but it does not automatically follow that Hanratty placed that hanky with the gun. There is no forensic evidence on the gun or the cartridges to link them with Hanratty and it does not take the brain of Britain to work out that the gun, hanky and cartidges could have been planted by someone wanting to incriminate Hanratty.

And that's exactly where this argument fails in my mind, every theory involves someone deliberately framing Hanratty by putting his hanky round the gun, but there's no explanation for how the murder weapon and Hanratty's hanky came to be found together if Hanratty was innocent.

3. You found Ron's little play amusing.

Yes, I found it amusing because it's clearly nonsensical, and yet this is what some people (Foot) seem to be suggesting happened. I notice you didn't comment on the hypocrisy surrounding Tony's fabrications from the opposite viewpoint.

KR,
Vic.

[richardnunweek]

Hi,
Although there is no doubt that the A6 Murder was a infamous case, and because of this much speculation will obviously follow, but unlike the case Of Jack The Ripper we have a conviction.
James Hanratty trial.. guilty as charged.
The appeal x2 .. guilty as charged.
D.N.A..guilty as charged.
And yet the thread persists with
A cover up
Alphon did it.
Scientific mix up.
The only person we should take note of , is Valerie, she was there, she knew her rapist, she knew the killer of mike, and she knew who attempted to kill her, that person being the one she identified on the parade, and the man that stood in the dock.
Does anyone seriously believe that she has lived for nearly fifty years with any doubt.. fifty years of speculation by the media, fifty years of her name being mentioned as possibly sending an innocent man to the gallows.
She has always maintained the right man was hung..no doubt, that along with the DNA, is the end of it as far as I am concerned.
Hanratty guilty.
Regards Richard...just my opinion

[Natalie Severn]

Hi Richard,
I think you have made your mind up over this but still it may be worth your reading the following:
re: eye witness ID from a recent case in America:
Ms. Thompson went to the police station later that same day to work up a [composite sketch] of her attacker, relying on what she believed was her detailed memory. Several days later, the police constructed a photographic lineup, and she selected Ronald Junior Cotton from the lineup. She later testified against him at trial. She was positive it was him, without any doubt in her mind. "I was sure. I knew it. I had picked the right guy, and he was going to go to jail. If there was the possibility of a death sentence, I wanted him to die. I wanted to flip the switch."[7]
But she was wrong, as DNA results eventually showed. It turns out she was even presented with her actual attacker during a second trial proceeding a year after the attack, but swore she'd never seen the man before in her life. She remained convinced that Ronald Cotton was her attacker, and it was not until much later, after Mr. Cotton had served 11 years in prison for a crime he did not commit, that she realized that she had made a grave mistake.
Jennifer Thompson's memory had failed her, resulting in a substantial injustice. It took definitive DNA testing to shake her confidence, but she now knows that despite her confidence in her identification, it was wrong. Cases like Ms. Thompson's, including a long history of eyewitness errors traceable back to Biblical times, prompted the emergence of a field within the social sciences dedicated to the study of eyewitness memory and the causes ........

I can provide the link for further information but as Michael Sherrard said at Hanratty"s trial:

MICHAEL SHERRARD: The witness may be perfectly honest, absolutely convinced that he or she has identified the right man or woman and you're not going to be able to cross-examine them to show that they're lying "cos they're not lying, they're telling the truth as they see it.

With all good wishes,
Norma

[jimarilyn]

Identifications

Hi Richard,
I think you have made your mind up over this but still it may be worth your reading the following:
re: eye witness ID from a recent case in America:
Ms. Thompson went to the police station later that same day to work up a [composite sketch] of her attacker, relying on what she believed was her detailed memory. Several days later, the police constructed a photographic lineup, and she selected Ronald Junior Cotton from the lineup. She later testified against him at trial. She was positive it was him, without any doubt in her mind. "I was sure. I knew it. I had picked the right guy, and he was going to go to jail. If there was the possibility of a death sentence, I wanted him to die. I wanted to flip the switch."[7]
But she was wrong, as DNA results eventually showed. It turns out she was even presented with her actual attacker during a second trial proceeding a year after the attack, but swore she'd never seen the man before in her life. She remained convinced that Ronald Cotton was her attacker, and it was not until much later, after Mr. Cotton had served 11 years in prison for a crime he did not commit, that she realized that she had made a grave mistake.
Jennifer Thompson's memory had failed her, resulting in a substantial injustice. It took definitive DNA testing to shake her confidence, but she now knows that despite her confidence in her identification, it was wrong. Cases like Ms. Thompson's, including a long history of eyewitness errors traceable back to Biblical times, prompted the emergence of a field within the social sciences dedicated to the study of eyewitness memory and the causes ........

I can provide the link for further information but as Michael Sherrard said at Hanratty"s trial:

MICHAEL SHERRARD: The witness may be perfectly honest, absolutely convinced that he or she has identified the right man or woman and you're not going to be able to cross-examine them to show that they're lying "cos they're not lying, they're telling the truth as they see it.

With all good wishes,
Norma

A very illuminating post Norma. I agree that Julie's post [#6482] was a fine post.

We know what Valerie Storie said at the trial [and publicly since, for the cameras ] re. her identification of Hanratty.
We don't know if privately [since Hanratty's execution] she has ever had severe misgivings about her identification.
What is certain however is that she is never going to publicly admit that she may have been wrong.
You don't have to be a rocket scientist to understand why and you don't have to be a rocket scientist to realise why she has had to maintain the stance she has taken for the last 49 years.

[Tony]

Hi Derrick,

3. Tony frequently posted multpile ficticious scenarios involving Acott and Oxford discussing the case, yet when Ron does it from the opposite viewpoint the usual suspects berate him, yet the same people congratulated Tony - there's 6,400 posts to trawl back through, so I'm not going to bother, you know who you are. Don't be a hypocrit.

Ron - entertaining irrelevance or irreverance - your bread is buttered on the wrong side. I thought it was amusing! But then I would.

Vic.

Hello, Vic,

How nice of you to remember the fictitious discussions I made up on the case.

Personally I can hardly remember them but I thought it involved Acott discussing the case in bed with his wife.

Anyway I am pleased they made such an impact and had such a lasting effect on you; I have no idea where they are so perhaps you might have a record that you can send me by PM.

Thank you very much, Vic.

Tony.

Actually if Ron is going to carry on with his play (and I hope he is; he is very entertaining) I might just re-create the Baz and Oxo show once more.

Tony.

[Natalie Severn]

That would be a lot of fun Tony,can"t wait!

[Victor]

How nice of you to remember the fictitious discussions I made up on the case.

Personally I can hardly remember them but I thought it involved Acott discussing the case in bed with his wife.

Anyway I am pleased they made such an impact and had such a lasting effect on you; I have no idea where they are so perhaps you might have a record that you can send me by PM.

Thank you very much, Vic.

Hi Tony,

You are very much welcome. Unfortunately I don't have copies saved or stored anywhere, they are somewhere buried in the thread but you should be able to search for posts made by yourself and retrieve them. I enjoyed reading them and they were a welcome distraction from the sometimes heated discussions.

Actually if Ron is going to carry on with his play (and I hope he is; he is very entertaining) I might just re-create the Baz and Oxo show once more.

As Zodiac suggested it would probably be better to post these sort of things in the "Creative writing" section of the forum, or to create a new thread in the A6 area with a similar title.

KR,
Vic.

[Victor]

We know what Valerie Storie said at the trial [and publicly since, for the cameras ] re. her identification of Hanratty.
We don't know if privately [since Hanratty's execution] she has ever had severe misgivings about her identification.
What is certain however is that she is never going to publicly admit that she may have been wrong.
You don't have to be a rocket scientist to understand why and you don't have to be a rocket scientist to realise why she has had to maintain the stance she has taken for the last 49 years.

Hi James,

As I see it there are two diametrically opposed possibilities:-
1. As you imply, she was wrong but held her position all through the numerous and vocal calls for a re-trial including the Foot, Justice and Woffinden books, the John Lennon film, the panorama and other documentaries, until she got the unexpected support from the DNA tests.

2. She was right all along.

I fail to see why you disagree so strongly with Norma and her quote from Michael Sherrard...
The witness may be perfectly honest, absolutely convinced that he or she has identified the right man or woman and you're not going to be able to cross-examine them to show that they're lying "cos they're not lying, they're telling the truth as they see it.

KR,
Vic.

[Limehouse]

Hi Julie,

I said 'Hanratty was diagnosed "mentally defective"', I did not say he was. I recall it was made after he collapsed in the streets of Brighton and had nothing to do with criminality nor illiteracy. Hanratty himself opted not to enter a plea of diminished responsibility because doing so would involve him pleading guilty.

Alphon has no such diagnosis, and any speculation about his mental condition is just speculation. I don't know for certain that he has not displayed any evidence of impaired behaviour in the last 40 years, but again I asked for any evidence that he has to support the negative speculation - innocent until proven guilty and all that.


And that's exactly where this argument fails in my mind, every theory involves someone deliberately framing Hanratty by putting his hanky round the gun, but there's no explanation for how the murder weapon and Hanratty's hanky came to be found together if Hanratty was innocent.


Yes, I found it amusing because it's clearly nonsensical, and yet this is what some people (Foot) seem to be suggesting happened. I notice you didn't comment on the hypocrisy surrounding Tony's fabrications from the opposite viewpoint.

KR,
Vic.

Hanratty was diagnosed as being mentally defective after collapsing in the street? What kind of doctor would make that diagnoses? It makes no sense at all.

You cannot possibly say that no diagnosis has been made of Alphon's mental condition. Do you have access to his medical notes? There may be no publicised diagnosis of his state - but he was certainly an hysteric at the very least. My assessmenmt of his mental condition is based on his behaviour which included making possibly hundreds of telephone calls to various people involved in the case - including Valerie Storie - the France family - the Hanratty family - Justice and Fox and various others. The phone calls to some of the people apparently went on for years after the case had concluded. He also visited the Hanratty's and offered to compensate them financially for the loss of their son.

The explanation of how Hanratty's hanky got round the gun is exactly that. Someone other than hanratty placed the hanky round the gun when disposing of it in a place Hanratty had admitted using as a hiding place. It will be remembered that when Hanratty went thieving - he used a CLEAN hanky to wipe evidence from surfaces and items he discarded. He would would have wrapped the gun in a used hanky - not because he worried about his DNA turning up - but because that was not how he did things.

I didn't comment on Tony's fabrications because there is every possibility I did not read them. I have had periods away from the thread for various reasons. However - I am sure Tony's scenario did not involve a woman who suffered the horrific death of her husband engaged in a conversation with another person concerning the 'bumping off' of that loved husband and father.

[Derrick]

Hi Derrick,

I've been away for a while and have ongoing commitments so won't be posting as regularly, and have only just caught up on your predictable, tired, oft-repeated rhetoric. You aren't yet another sock-puppet for Reg, SteveS, and Clive are you? A little hint to avoid being spotted - post something original or thought-provoking instead of repeating Woffinden's 'all the other evidence has been discreditted'-claptrap.

1. Hanratty was diagnosed "mentally defective", Alphon lived until last year and other than indulging Justice's largesse [Thank you Graham] and making a few bizarre phonecalls never killed anyone.

How anyone can entertain the possibility that Alphon was psychotic or schitophrenic or otherwise mentally unbalanced without any shred of evidence from the last 40 years (ie from 1970 until his deth in 2008/9 - Norma) is incredible.

2. There were several LCN DNA tests, the hanky gave a single [un-mixed] profile "The only places on the handkerchief from which his DNA was extracted were the areas of mucus staining" - judgment para 126. It was not kept with the knicker fragment and was discovered seperately and Hanratty admitted it was his. That's an almighty "coincidence" to explain away for Hanratty supporters, especially in light of all the other coincidences that are undisputed. "Sagging" with them, the case is.

3. Tony frequently posted multpile ficticious scenarios involving Acott and Oxford discussing the case, yet when Ron does it from the opposite viewpoint the usual suspects berate him, yet the same people congratulated Tony - there's 6,400 posts to trawl back through, so I'm not going to bother, you know who you are. Don't be a hypocrit.

Ron - entertaining irrelevance or irreverance - your bread is buttered on the wrong side. I thought it was amusing! But then I would.

4. No-one knows the exact LCN results, we know the summary of the conclusions, if anyone wants to contest those, then go right ahead, just don't expect to be taken seriously. I still welcome the challenge although nobody has posteed to that thread since September 2009.

KR,
Vic.

Victor

The LCN DNA tests performed on the hanky and the knicker fragment are suspect as per the Reed appeal and the Caddy review. The hanky may not have been a mixed profile but its provenence as good evidence is still in question because, as laid out in Reed and Caddy inter alia;

1) All LCN tests must undergo a quantitation step.
2) Caveats must be given as to the limitations of the LCN technique below the stochastic threshold.
3) No assumptions can be made as to the source of any material under LCN because the amount of DNA is so small.
4) All DNA evidence, whether LCN or ortherwise must be viewed in accordance with any other evidence in a particular case.

These points must be accepted by everyone as they are the abiding rules by which LCN is acceptable as evidence here in England and Wales.

For the DNA evidence in 2002, the first 3 points above were either not followed or stated so the appeal judgement of 2002 regarding the DNA evidence is obviously now in contravention of the Reed/Caddy rulings.

Victor, with regard to point 4 above, would you like to pinpoint for me exactly all of the evidence that shows Hanratty was the A6 murderer beyond a reasonable doubt that would then support the DNA?

Derrick

[Natalie Severn]

Thanks Julie . I must say that I was a bit surprised too to read Bob Woffinden commenting on Hanratty"s inability to be" inventive about anything" and saying he was "inarticulate".Such speculation is not borne out by his performance in the dock,his resourceful transference of skills* from housebreaking to stealing cars and vice versa-breaking into a jaguar and driving up North from London in it as he did with no trouble at all.His moving and fluent use of language in his letters to his family, the occasional Cockney quip included. Michael Sherrard says of Hanratty,"He was a "likeable, articulate character, a Cockney sparrow, quite up to the mark on repartee.
His bonhomie too is well illustrated in the following quip from a letter dictated not long before his execution to his mum: "I have improved my game of draughts and I keep the officers on their toes at all times.They call me "King of the draught board".
The warders ,Father Hulme, the prison governor even, all appear to have liked and enjoyed the company of James Hanratty.

* I am not suggesting here that this was in any sense to his credit from a moral point of view,just that when he was motivated -as with the jaguar ,he learnt rapidly and effectively.

[Natalie Severn]

posted by Derrick:

Victor, with regard to point 4 above, would you like to pinpoint for me exactly all of the evidence that shows Hanratty was the A6 murderer beyond a reasonable doubt that would then support the DNA?

The above is so crucial , Derrick.
Brilliant post by the way.