a6 murder

[Natalie Severn]

Auditors who work for the state are employed to find problems with state processes and recommend corrective actions. It's their job to attack the State and locate breaking points so no-one else can.

Sorry Vic, As you didn"t qualify the noun "auditors" I thought you were referring to people who do accounts! But ok they look for loop holes in the system ,fair enough .
Norma

Thanks Julie and Derick.

[Natalie Severn]

Wouldn't the corrupt nature of the investigation and trial have allowed a guilty man to escape justice? Didn't the investigation team take serious risks in terms of some of the antics they indulged in?

Now - put yourself in my position and that of the other people who doubt Hanratty's guilt. Our concern extends far greater than the possibility that an innocent man was hanged. Our concern extends to the possibility that a guilty man went free and justice was not done.

Hi Julie,

I tend not to think Supt. Acott was simply wanting a conviction -and any would do kind of thing.Acott had Alphon down for it-but once Valerie pointed to Michael Clark and not Alphon, then Alphon was dropped as the prime suspect.That left Hanratty to attend to as far as Acott was concerned---it had to be someone,he believed from the Vienna Hotel.
Yet there was really only Valerie"s statement that he could go on and Valerie said after two weeks only,that her memory of her brief glimpse of the gunman"s face was fading.Moreover,she had identified as her rapist someone who couldn"t possibly have been her rapist.
Acott became convinced he had his man in Hanratty.Try putting yourself in Acott"s shoes, he had so little by way of concrete evidence ,such as hairs, fibres , fingerprints, firm witness statements,but he was sure he had his man the second time. France had helped him out and France was Hanratty"s friend etc
" Keef" [Richards] writing in Monday"s "The Times" states "it was so easy to bust a hippy"-and it got very easy to plant a couple of joints on people.It was just so common that you expected it".
Now imagine if it was a murder investigation where despite being utterly convinced the man you arrested was the killer and rapist, you were so lacking in concrete evidence that you could see this person being acquitted.
It doesnt take rocket science to work out what Sherrard suggests happened.
And I dont know whether concentrating on Hanratty prevented them from catching the real killer.The real killer may just have had a much higher IQ. than everybody else on the case--and would never have been caught.

[jimarilyn]

But at the present time I believe that Hanratty was totally innocent and the more I read between the lines of what Michael Sherrard CBE,QC says about the trial ,only a year ago in 2009, about the background to the case, the shady witnesses for the prosecution, the tampering with witness statements , the changed venue etc the more convinced I am,not just of Hanratty"s innocence regarding the murder and rape, but that he knew nothing about the A6 murder.

I too completely agree with your assessment Norma ( some excellent posts by Julie and yourself incidentally ) and that James Hanratty knew absolutely zilch about the A6 murder. One of the strongest pointers to this can be seen in his carefree behaviour both prior to and post A6 murder. Behaviour consistent with an innocent man. He had no guilty secret preying on his mind and he interacted with friends and acquaintances in the same old happy go lucky manner. These friends and acquaintances detected no tell-tale signs in his behaviour of him harbouring any momentous secret. This contrasts starkly with the strange behaviour of a certain educated 30 year old male who hid himself low in the immediate aftermath of the crime, and who was almost a dead-ringer for Valerie Storie's identi-kit photo of the killer.

[Victor]

James Hanratty knew absolutely zilch about the A6 murder. One of the strongest pointers to this can be seen in his carefree behaviour both prior to and post A6 murder. Behaviour consistent with an innocent man.

Hi James,

He absolutely wasn't "an innocent man", e.g., Trevonne.

He had no guilty secret preying on his mind and he interacted with friends and acquaintances in the same old happy go lucky manner. These friends and acquaintances detected no tell-tale signs in his behaviour of him harbouring any momentous secret.

If, as you clearly demonstrate, he was carefree about the many burgularies he had definitely committed, then why would he be any different having committed the A6 murder - he clearly thought he was going to get away with it!

This contrasts starkly with the strange behaviour of a certain educated 30 year old male who hid himself low in the immediate aftermath of the crime, and who was almost a dead-ringer for Valerie Storie's identi-kit photo of the killer.

I would say "typically strange behaviour", and he looks nothing like the Identikit, unlike Hanratty as commented on by a contemporary witness.

KR,
Vic.

[NickB]

But what if the DNA had been clearly inconclusive? What if it had pointed to someone so far unknown to this case?

So if it points towards Hanratty the DNA test is invalid, but if it points to someone else that same DNA test is valid!

James Hanratty knew absolutely zilch about the A6 murder. One of the strongest pointers to this can be seen in his carefree behaviour both prior to and post A6 murder. Behaviour consistent with an innocent man.

When wanted for the A6 murder he went on the run.

[jimarilyn]

According to Victor, Peter Alphon looks nothing like the Identi-kit photo...........

I would say "typically strange behaviour", and he looks nothing like the Identikit, unlike Hanratty as commented on by a contemporary witness.KR,Vic.

Come off it Victor, who are you trying to kid here ? Alphon looks nothing like the Identi-kit ? Just for once be honest with yourself.......................................... ......................

[NickB]

Valerie said after two weeks only,that her memory of her brief glimpse of the gunman"s face was fading.Moreover,she had identified as her rapist someone who couldn"t possibly have been her rapist.

I agree that Valerie’s identification of Clark was confirmation that she thought her memory was fading, but do not see that this precludes her from recognising Hanratty subsequently.

Larman, at his first interview, made it clear that he would not be able to recognise the man if he saw him again. This puts ”my memory of this man's face is fading” in the shade!

If you accept in principle that Larman could recognise someone after a complete memory loss, I don’t see why you have difficulty accepting in principle that Valerie could recognise someone after a partial memory loss.

On the Panorama programme Valerie said: “I just tried to pick out somebody I suppose who I thought looked like him. I made a mistake.”

This is similar to Blackhall’s account that he picked out someone “who looked something like the man in the car” on the Alphon id parade.

Blackhall picked out an innocent volunteer on both his identity parades, yet escapes any criticism.

[Limehouse]

[QUOTE=NickB;151566]So if it points towards Hanratty the DNA test is invalid, but if it points to someone else that same DNA test is valid!


No - that is not what I mean because I do not accept the DNA evidence under ANY circumstances. My point was addressed to people who DO accept the DNA evidence - even if they accept that the investigation and trial had flaws. If they accept the DNA evidence - they would have presumably accepted a result that indicated Hanratty had not deposited his DNA on the garment. Under those circumstances - the flawed nature of the investigation and trial seriously risked the wrong person beiong convicted. Accot and co could not have known that forty years after the trial more forensic tests would be carried out on the garment.

[Victor]

My point was addressed to people who DO accept the DNA evidence - even if they accept that the investigation and trial had flaws. If they accept the DNA evidence - they would have presumably accepted a result that indicated Hanratty had not deposited his DNA on the garment.

Hi Julie,

Yes absolutely, if it had shown Alphon's or someone else's DNA I would have accepted it.

Under those circumstances - the flawed nature of the investigation and trial seriously risked the wrong person beiong convicted. Accot and co could not have known that forty years after the trial more forensic tests would be carried out on the garment.

I do not accept that the trial (in particular) nor investigation were flawed, I previously believed that there was insufficient evidence to convict.

KR,
Vic.

[Victor]

Come off it Victor, who are you trying to kid here ? Alphon looks nothing like the Identi-kit ? Just for once be honest with yourself.......................................... ......................

The face is completely the wrong shape for a start, the nose and eyes too big, the mouth too small, the hairline too far forward and the position of the ears compared to the mouth and nose couldn't be more wrong.

2nd - what's the date on those photographs and have they been doctored at all.

3rd - There are other photos of Alphon that look even less like the Identikit, have you been picking and chosing again?

4th - Valerie had the chance to compare her memories directly with Alphon and Michael Clark and others, and thought that Clark looked more like her rapist than Alphon.

KR,
Vic.

[NickB]

I do not accept the DNA evidence under ANY circumstances.

Are you saying you would have refused to accept the DNA result if it had pointed to someone other than Hanratty?

[Natalie Severn]

posted by Vic,
[QUOTE] Yes absolutely, if it had shown Alphon's or someone else's DNA I would have accepted it.[QUOTE]

Hi Vic!

Some hope! Do take a look at Keef Richards" serialised story in this weeks "The Times"telling its readership about how this and that got "planted" on folk on individuals and in raids in the swingin 60"s

Posted by Vic,

If, as you clearly demonstrate, he was carefree about the many burgularies he had definitely committed, then why would he be any different having committed the A6 murder - he clearly thought he was going to get away with it!

When did Hanratty get away with anything? But now we have the answer written large by you Vic! It explains so much about the case ---the mindset that equates housebreaking with murder. But they are not at all the same thing ,neither in degree of criminality nor as assessed in a court of law!
The very same mindset that cost Hanratty his life in my view,because the Bedfordshire Jury didnt seem to see the difference either between housebreaking and murder, even though a distinguishing feature of Hanratty"s criminal career had been its total absence of violence---his record was clear,he had never used violence.
So in my view Hanratty would have behaved differently after committing such a terrible crime as this.
Norma

[Limehouse]

Are you saying you would have refused to accept the DNA result if it had pointed to someone other than Hanratty?

Yes - there is little enough evidence to convict Hanratty and none at all to convict anyone else.

[Limehouse]

[QUOTE=Natalie Severn;151604]posted by Vic,
[QUOTE] Yes absolutely, if it had shown Alphon's or someone else's DNA I would have accepted it.

Hi Vic!

Some hope! Do take a look at Keef Richards" serialised story in this weeks "The Times"telling its readership about how this and that got "planted" on folk on individuals and in raids in the swingin 60"s

Posted by Vic,


[/I]
When did Hanratty get away with anything? But now we have the answer written large by you Vic! It explains so much about the case ---the mindset that equates housebreaking with murder. But they are not at all the same thing ,neither in degree of criminality nor as assessed in a court of law!
The very same mindset that cost Hanratty his life in my view,because the Bedfordshire Jury didnt seem to see the difference either between housebreaking and murder, even though a distinguishing feature of Hanratty"s criminal career had been its total absence of violence---his record was clear,he had never used violence.
So in my view Hanratty would have behaved differently after committing such a terrible crime as this.
Norma

Yes - absolutely - no one would call Hanratty a model citizen but he paid for his crimes wioth long periods in prison and he was honest about his criminaltiy.

Alphon - on the other hand - was Teflon man.

[Natalie Severn]

I too completely agree with your assessment Norma ( some excellent posts by Julie and yourself incidentally ) and that James Hanratty knew absolutely zilch about the A6 murder. One of the strongest pointers to this can be seen in his carefree behaviour both prior to and post A6 murder. Behaviour consistent with an innocent man. He had no guilty secret preying on his mind and he interacted with friends and acquaintances in the same old happy go lucky manner. These friends and acquaintances detected no tell-tale signs in his behaviour of him harbouring any momentous secret. This contrasts starkly with the strange behaviour of a certain educated 30 year old male who hid himself low in the immediate aftermath of the crime, and who was almost a dead-ringer for Valerie Storie's identi-kit photo of the killer.

Thanks James, I must say too that I agree with you over the carefree behaviour which is in stark contrast to how he behaved when they were hunting him down.On the identikit photo,it certainly is far more like Alphon head shape and feature by feature than it is Hanratty.