a6 murder

[Limehouse]

Did Alphon do National Service?

We know that Hanratty was rejected for National Service on the grounds of illiteracy - but what of Alphon? I can't find any references anywhere to state whether or not he completed National Service. Does anyone know?

[Victor]

Any appeal ruling can set a certain precedent that can be applied to any case, retrospectively or otherwise. In Hanratty in 2002 the judges used Pendleton (2002) for guidance on the admissibility of fresh evidence. Pendleton was forty years after the original Hanratty trial and appeal.

Hi Derrick,

Pendleton was used solely for the issue of whether the prosecution could admit fresh evidence, not to reevaluate evidence already submitted.

Any quantitation from previous tests has no bearing on tests performed later on on a separate piece of the knicker fragment and is frankly scientifically ludicrous to suggest such a practice. The chances of the 2 containing exactly the same DNA distribution per contributor and molecular weights is as close to nil as makes no odds.

Any quantification step is done on a seperate aliquot which won't have exactly the same DNA distribution. The result here would be indicative of the result in the parts of the fragment.

I agree with you here that if 3 aliquots were made up originally and the 3rd wasn't used it should be quantified, retested and compared to the EPG's of the original tests.

That would be the best option.

Never mind Evison, (who quite obviously did not know the limitations of LCN as illustrated by his seeming acceptance of a particular source material being a contaminant in a LCN test.) because it was Nigel Sweeney who (appeal ruling p83)
No caveats given there at all, quite the opposite in fact.

That's the judgment which is a sumaary of the discussions. The fact that no caveats are included doesn't mean they weren't given.

From the 2002 appeal ruling (p120)
So the respondents have made claims as to the source of any contaminating material having to be semen. Evison is thus shown perhaps accepting this viewpoint.

There is the possibility that the sample was seperated into two fractions, one sperm heads, the other everything else - Reg posted a link revealing this technique on the DNA thread - so maybe that was why Evison accepted that.

The fourth point, that of DNA must be weighed along all the other evidence, was not applied by the courts ruling as stated at p127

What about the "makes a strong case even stronger" comment?

Cutting and pasting a list of features that the prosecution relied on at the original trial is not going to help to show evidence of Hanratty's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Take your time Victor, no one was expecting you to come up with a definitve list in under 24 hours.

As Nick pointed out that's the Prosecution's list of evidence showing Hanratty's guilt, that the jury accepted, so must have considerable weight, and succinctly answers the question you asked.

KR,
Vic.

[Derrick]

The jury were convinced by it.

They heard the whole trial, not just read filtered excerpts, and saw the way that the witnesses presented their evidence. They also knew that a guilty verdict would mean hanging.

The judge explained to the jury in ultra simple language what ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ meant, ending with the words: “Therefore you may think the best way of looking at it is this: you have to be sure of the guilt of the accused before you find him guilty."

As Nick pointed out that's the Prosecution's list of evidence showing Hanratty's guilt, that the jury accepted, so must have considerable weight, and succinctly answers the question you asked.

Nick/Victor
Appeal ruling p9

On 13 July 1994, further submissions were made to the Criminal Cases Unit of the Home Office. On 1 April 1997, responsibility for considering alleged miscarriages of justice passed to the Criminal Cases Review Commission (“the Commission”) who took over responsibility for investigating the allegations as to James Hanratty’s conviction. Having conducted further enquiries (including obtaining DNA evidence), on 26 March 1999, the Commission referred the conviction to this Court pursuant to section 13 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1995. The Commission stated, in accordance with the statutory provisions, that there was a real possibility that the conviction would not be upheld.

The CCRC spent 2 years investigating the case. Baden Skitt the chief investigating officer and former Chief Constable of the Hertfordshire force said that Hanratty was innocent, yet could not explain the DNA evidence.

The case against Hanratty was not a very strong one and it goes nowhere to prove Hanratty's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

And as DNA evidence must be weighed according to all the evidence, to say that the DNA evidence "standing alone is certain proof of James Hanratty’s guilt." is just scientifically wrong.

In that light my question has not been answered, succinctly or otherwise.

It is going to take someone to be able to show Hanratty's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt for me to accept Hanratty was the A6 killer.

Derrick

[RonIpstone]

And as DNA evidence must be weighed according to all the evidence, to say that the DNA evidence "standing alone is certain proof of James Hanratty’s guilt." is just scientifically wrong.

To make and justify that assertion, you are going to have to say what are your scientific qualifications and what access you have had to information regarding the DNA test procedures carried out and the results thereof for the 2002 appeal. Alternatively, you could direct us to the opinion of someone who has the necessary scientific qualifications and who has had full access to those procedures and results, and who supports your assertion.

As far as I can see no expert on the defence side (Hanratty family) has made any such claim as you now make and we should remember that over the years at least two experts have been instructed by the Hanrattys. The best that has emanated from the Hanratty team is Foot saying with the benefit of his scientific illiteracy that the results are wrong because Hanratty was in Rhyl and Woffinden saying that the results are wrong but further funding is required to find out why they are wrong.

Until someone with the necessary expertise gives an authoritative opinion on the specifics of this case with regard to the specific exhibits tested, then the mumbo jumbo spouted on this forum will remain just that and all right thinking people should ignore it.

[jimarilyn]

We know that Hanratty was rejected for National Service on the grounds of illiteracy - but what of Alphon? I can't find any references anywhere to state whether or not he completed National Service. Does anyone know?

Hi Julie,

The reference you're seeking can be found on p415 of Bob Woffinden's excellent book. Gladys Alphon mentions it during the course of her interrogation by Acott.
Last October I submitted a post that dealt partly with this.
Here it is and I hope it's helpful..........

Hi Andrew,

A very interesting and informative post.
I wonder if Peter Alphon ever attended that particular dog-track.

It's strange how the RAF features in this case.
Peter Alphon was in the RAF at Marlow, Bucks, for about 18 months or so doing his National Service.
Michael Clark was in the RAF at Northwood, Middlesex.
This base is about 6 or 7 miles from the RAF base at Northolt, Middlesex.
The gunman was familiar with the Northolt area and wanted Michael Gregsten to stop at a cafe he frequented where they could get something to eat.
When the police circulated their description of Peter Alphon they stated...."He is known to frequent Streatham, Victoria, Putney, Kilburn, Northolt and Kingsbury".
Very interesting those last two places........


regards,
James

[jimarilyn]

49 years ago today, at almost this exact moment, James Hanratty boarded the Liverpool to Rhyl bus at the bus station in Skelhorne Street [at the side of Lime Street Station]. Moments earlier, in his efforts to sell a stolen gold watch, he had spoken with Robert Kempt on the steps outside Reynolds Billiard Hall in Lime Street. Approximately an hour beforehand he had spoken with Olive Dinwoodie in a sweet shop on Scotland Road. About a couple of hours after his encounter with Mr Kempt he was walking the streets of Rhyl, enquiring of several of it's very reliable and trustworthy citizens where he could obtain accommodation for a couple of nights. These Liverpool and Rhyl witnesses corroborated almost completely James Hanratty's account of where he was and what he was doing on the afternoon/evening of August 22nd 1961. He was many many miles from a certain cornfield in rural Dorney.


For some people Hanratty's innocence becomes much more than a matter of a gut feeling.

[RonIpstone]

Hanratty v Alphon

49 years ago Peter Alphon had checked into the Vienna Hotel, Maida Vale, his presence there was documented by that hotel's register: Jim Hanratty's presence anywhere was not likewise documented. Jim was to initially lie through his teeth saying that he stayed in Liverpool with 'friends' whom he was unwilling to name, when this became untenable, he switched his alibi for the murder night to Rhyl. Hanratty lied about Rhyl as he had lied about Liverpool.

[jimornot?]

[QUOTE=RonIpstone;144788} .....
Until someone with the necessary expertise gives an authoritative opinion on the specifics of this case with regard to the specific exhibits tested, then the mumbo jumbo spouted on this forum will remain just that and all right thinking people should ignore it.[/QUOTE]

Hi Ron

a bit unfair that last bit I feel unless I have a different understanding of the term mumbo jumbo.

If previously untouchable tenents (eg certain DNA testing) are actually faulty then, to me, it is precisely this type of forum / gradual awareness / groundswell of opinion that will help to change thinking. Not that I am saying the DNA testing is faulty - I don't know and am prepared to keep my faith in it for the time being.


Dear all

Did anyone have anything else they could find on France's suicide note as per a post I made last week or so?

Did anyone find the reference to Sherrard indicating that the right man was hanged as requested by Norma. I thought I had seen something but can't locate it at all?

Really enjoying this thread again and it is good robust, polite debate. A bit frustrated that there are now separate ones to go through eg Alphon did it / didn't do it. Don't want to miss anything but am inherently lazy (I say busy)

Disappointing that the talk of impending revelations of info so many months ago didn't materialise. But so good that people are making strong arguments again

all the best

Viv

[jimornot?]

49 years ago Peter Alphon had checked into the Vienna Hotel, Maida Vale, his presence there was documented by that hotel's register: Jim Hanratty's presence anywhere was not likewise documented. Jim was to initially lie through his teeth saying that he stayed in Liverpool with 'friends' whom he was unwilling to name, when this became untenable, he switched his alibi for the murder night to Rhyl. Hanratty lied about Rhyl as he had lied about Liverpool.

Hi Ron and all

I expect it has been covered well enough before but I have never really understood why Hanratty changed his alibi and didn't go with the 'proper' one at the outset. I know there are arguments that he thought others would vouch for him in Liverpool but when they failed to do so he went with the Rhyl version.

Not that I think Alphon's alibi was anything much - his mother vouched for him and I think his father later said they couldn't have met that day but I have no idea if that is rumour or fact.

atb

viv

[Natalie Severn]

He does not have to prove his alibi.....

Judge Justice Gormon according to Michael Sherrard QC ,[Hanratty"s trial barrister] made this remark at the original trial and and Sherrard records it in his autobiography, "Wigs and Wherefores" published only last year [2009].

"He does not have to prove his alibi.The failure or otherwise of the alibi does not make him guilty.You do not have to rely on it.

Sherrard comments: "He [the presiding Judge,Judge Gormon] gave the [Bedford ]jury perfectly good direction.
He was bursting himself to indicate to the jury that he did not think the case was strong enough .

We can discuss the alibi question interminably but the fact remains that to the presiding judge at the trial at least -it was not that important.But there was no getting through to these dimwits, the all male,all white,hang"em and flog "em neanderthals , that comprised the Bedfordshire Jury , were determined Hanratty should hang anyway ---to them he was a petty crook who broke into their houses---what more did anyone really need to know? Lets get on and hang the bugger by jove!---why this bewigged chap---Judge Gormon should just stop arsing about in his wig ,put his black cap on and have done with it instead of coming out with a pile of "legalese"---mumbo jumbo nonsense it is ,nothing more---which none of us "understand" anyway !Why not that long ago you could hang a bugger like this for poaching let alone Housebreaking! "tea please!"[that actually happened---they outraged Judge Gormon by sending for smoked salmon and tea while everyone waited and Hanratty stood ten hours in the dock waiting for the verdict ---death.
In my view Hanratty had a perfectly good alibi in Mrs Dinwoody, Supt,Acott had checked her out and found nothing to suspect her of any dishonesty.But Hanratty knew they were checking out his Liverpool mates and would get nothing out of them that would be remotely helpful and the original lie had started to snowball ---so he decided to come clean about going to Rhyl where he had gone to find Terry Evans to sell the gold watch and his other bits of jewelry to. It wasnt just Mrs Jones it was Christopher Larman,Margaret Walker,and Mr Dutton who said they saw him and spoke to him and each had good reason to remember the dates----Larman was about to leave Rhyl for the South, MrsWalker remembered a family event that took place then and Mr Dutton had visited his bank and had a record of it.

[Black Rabbit]

49 years ago today...

Michael Gregsten RIP

[Alfie]

49 years ago today...

Michael Gregsten RIP

Heartening to see somebody remembering one of the REAL victims of the A6 case.

[jimornot?]

[....... In my view Hanratty had a perfectly good alibi in Mrs Dinwoody, Supt,Acott had checked her out and found nothing to suspect her of any dishonesty.But Hanratty knew they were checking out his Liverpool mates and would get nothing out of them that would be remotely helpful and the original lie had started to snowball ---so he decided to come clean about going to Rhyl where he had gone .......

hi Norma

why did he lie about Rhyl in first place again? Presumably because he thought the mates would definitely help him but why not pretend he met them in Rhyl - say at the fairground? Or wsa there any other reason?

thanks

atb

Viv

[Victor]

Judge Justice Gormon according to Michael Sherrard QC ,[Hanratty"s trial barrister] made this remark at the original trial and and Sherrard records it in his autobiography, "Wigs and Wherefores" published only last year [2009].

"He does not have to prove his alibi.The failure or otherwise of the alibi does not make him guilty. You do not have to rely on it.

Sherrard comments: "He [the presiding Judge,Judge Gormon] gave the [Bedford ]jury perfectly good direction.
He was bursting himself to indicate to the jury that he did not think the case was strong enough.

Hi Norma,

Absolutely the failure of an alibi doesn't make someone guilty, it just means that the suspect has no alibi so was available to commit the crime. It's the other evidence - the cartridge cases in the room where Hanratty was the last white person to occupy, for example - that indicate guilt.

In my view Hanratty had a perfectly good alibi in Mrs Dinwoody, Supt,Acott had checked her out and found nothing to suspect her of any dishonesty.

Mrs Dinwoodieand another customer gave evidence that incident happened on the Monday when Hanratty was with the Frances - it's a useless alibi.

It wasnt just Mrs Jones it was Christopher Larman,Margaret Walker,and Mr Dutton who said they saw him and spoke to him and each had good reason to remember the dates----Larman was about to leave Rhyl for the South, MrsWalker remembered a family event that took place then and Mr Dutton had visited his bank and had a record of it.

I think we need to view that in the light of that quote from Sherrard - the perfectly honest witnesses, but mistaken quote. All they prove to me is that there was a person matching Hanratty's description in Rhyl that day, but it wasn't James Hanratty. You've previously highlighted how notoriously unreliable eyewitnesses are.

KR,
Vic.

[Victor]

The CCRC spent 2 years investigating the case. Baden Skitt the chief investigating officer and former Chief Constable of the Hertfordshire force said that Hanratty was innocent, yet could not explain the DNA evidence.

Hi Derrick,

Again someone who wasn't at the trial and didn't hear the witnesses firsthand to judge all their body language, &tc.

The case against Hanratty was not a very strong one and it goes nowhere to prove Hanratty's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

It did to those 11 men on the jury.

And as DNA evidence must be weighed according to all the evidence, to say that the DNA evidence "standing alone is certain proof of James Hanratty’s guilt." is just scientifically wrong.

Standing alone it would be, but it isn't, it corroborates all the other evidence including the victim's identification.

In that light my question has not been answered, succinctly or otherwise.

It is going to take someone to be able to show Hanratty's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt for me to accept Hanratty was the A6 killer.

That's just a turning tables tactic, at this stage we don't have to show beyond reasonable doubt that Hanratty was guilty, the jury believed that. You have to show he could not be guilty and the jury were wrong.

KR,
Vic.

ps. I agree with Alfie, Black Rabbit your post was poignant.