Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

a6 murder

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Hi Vic,
    Here are two examples that are pertinent to Valerie"s identifications:
    1]
    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 ......
    2] link
    http://law.jrank.org/pages/18786/Lineup.html



    As you know ,I dont believe for one moment anything about the DNA found on either the hanky or the knickers- I believe it is in fact deeply suspect and has been since the moment Alphon and Hanratty were found to share blood group O from semen testing in 1961.The more I learn of the case the more I believe it to have been a fabricated case against Hanratty,constructed in desperation ,possibly in good faith ,by Mr Acott and Mr Oxford, but "fabricated" nontheless.The reason I think this,and I will reiterate, is because of the following:

    First because the police used bogus statements from Nudds and later used Langdale to "swing things"; Second because they "withheld evidence" in a capital case - as Mr Sherrard reminded us in no uncertain terms---viz " I couldn"t bring myself to believe that anyone could be so wicked"- Michael Sherrard QC May 2002;
    Finally because the police were proven to have " tampered with witness statements "by modern forensic testing techniques ---thereby giving a very different meaning to what Hanratty had actually said to the police during his questioning.We know too that Mr Oxford appears to have had a bit of a history of" faking documents " from the successful case brought by Alison Halford against the Liverpool and Merseyside Police in the 1990"s so this in nothing that new.
    Last edited by Natalie Severn; 11-16-2010, 09:30 PM.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by NickB View Post
      Photo from the Express.
      Thanks Nick.

      Comment


      • Vic,
        Before you rush to judgment on Mr Sherrard who is one of the most highly respected and foremost advocates of his generation, you need to read his book which is full of different criminal cases and shows him to be a man of much integrity and compassion.
        Norma

        Comment


        • Originally posted by julie q View Post
          I have just read this post about Dick Taverne . Lord Taverne wrote an article in the Daily Mail in 12 March 1998 restating his belief in Hanratty's guilt, he had been a junior home office minister for several years in Harold Wilson's Labour goverment and had been supportive of the Hawser report. He stated in his article that he found the Langdale evidence convincing because it contained detail not in the public domain at the time his statement was given.
          and that the London criminal John Mcvicar had told him that Hanratty was undoubtly guilty.
          I sent a letter to Lord Taverne at the time suggesting that his article had been inaccurate,the detail given by Langdale had in fact been published in several newspapers.
          To his credit Lord Taverne replied to me and in the most courteous manner ,While he stiil felt he had been correct at the time to support the Hawser report He had this to say
          ""I am afraid my article was not very satisfactory .I was rung up by the Mail and gave my best recollection on something I had not looked at for about 28 years and had no time to check and then found to my suprise they had turned it into an article .Some of it I corrected before it went out .Some errors remained.
          Of course the Mcvicar statement was not evidence ,so it was an error to have quoted it .On reading Hawser I am reminded that Hanratty stressed his innocence to 2 other prisoners who were called by the defence "
          Two weeks later Paul Foot wrote an article in Private Eye Under the heading Lord Taverne ---What A Dick, in which he strongly criticised him for his Daily Mail Article.

          Thank you Julie. That is most helpful. May I say what a magnificent contribution you have made to the thread since you joined?

          Comment


          • Incidently - concerning Langdale's so-called 'inside knowledge' regarding where the abduction started - following the report from the prison officer who overheard Langdale bragging about Hanratty's 'confession' - langdale was interviewed by Acott so it is very likely he was given the inside knowledge.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by babybird67 View Post
              Unlike Hanratty of course, who always told the truth...

              apart from when he signed into hotels under assumed names, presumably for totally innocent purposes of course...

              oh and apart from when he was burglariing and robbing people...

              oh and stealing cars...

              oh and telling his parents it was safe for them to invest their entire fortune in him because honest he was going to go straight from now on...

              and apart from when he was fencing stolen goods to said Louise Anderson...

              and apart from when he was 'really' in Rhyl, when he said he was in Liverpool...

              and apart from when he was raping and murdering people.

              Honestly. Get a grip. Apply your standards to people UNIFORMLY not SELECTIVELY. I am all for disbelieving criminals, but it applies to ALL proven liars, not just the ones you don't seem to like.
              Hanratty was the first to admit he was not a model citizen. None of us is under the impression that he was.

              As has often been quoted on this thread - even by those who doubt Hanratty's guilt - Hanratty told the court "I am not a man the court would approve of - but I am not a murderer and I am not a rapist."

              Comment


              • I think this is when he blew a golden opportunity to show that he was not the type of person who could have committed the crime.

                When Swanwick asked about the hurt caused by his criminal activities he should have expressed some sympathy for his victims. Instead he responded with this line about how being a burglar did not make him a murderer. The jury knew that already.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by NickB View Post
                  I think this is when he blew a golden opportunity to show that he was not the type of person who could have committed the crime.

                  When Swanwick asked about the hurt caused by his criminal activities he should have expressed some sympathy for his victims. Instead he responded with this line about how being a burglar did not make him a murderer. The jury knew that already.

                  Faced with all these property owning hang "em and flog "em middle class reactionaries,maybe he preferred to tell the truth.
                  He had never in his life committed any crime of violence.He behaved with gentleness and consideration towards his girl friends.Maybe his mum and dad did find him a handful but they loved him all the same as he did them.
                  Interestingly Sherrard tells us that he wasnt the only one who became very fond of Hanratty as he got to know him,a "Cockney sparrow -as he called him--his warders were in tears when they heard the verdict,as were his priests and even the governor of the prison was devastated when he heard the result.

                  Comment


                  • Bloody hell, Norma, you'll have me in tears in a minute...

                    One thing that's struck me is that neither at the time of his trial, nor while he was awaiting execution, nor as far as I'm aware since, has anyone who may have been a friend or a girl-friend or a "business" acquaintance ever come forward to support him or to try to convince the world that Hanratty was really a diamond geezer and couldn't have done the A6. All right, Terry Evans helped the defence, but he could hardly be described as a person who knew Hanratty well. And obviously his family supported him, as any family would. But there seems to be a general shortage of "character witnesses" prepared to speak up positively on his behalf.

                    Graham
                    We are suffering from a plethora of surmise, conjecture and hypothesis. - Sherlock Holmes, The Adventure Of Silver Blaze

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by jimarilyn View Post
                      You've got a very selective memory Victor. Louise Anderson told Mirror reporter Edward Vale on October 9th 1961 [ in an interview that was very complimentary to Hanratty] that she was not scared of Hanratty. However, 3 months later she told Michael Sherrard at the Bedford trial ...."I was forced to give him money ( approx 600) . Things were left and they were given to Scotland Yard because I was frightened of the man."
                      NGE James - Not Good Enough.

                      Exactly what did she tell this reporter? Can we trust him? We know that reporters got quite a lot wrong about the A6 murder - hitchhiker murder for example - maybe he just wanted a sob story to print.

                      There are other possibilities too, maybe she was infatiguated by the attention of a reportedly charming man and was deceiving herself about the intimidation, just like a large number of domestic violence victims, but when she convinced herself that he was a rapist and murderer then she re-examined her relationship with him and realised how intimidated she had been.

                      So yes, she was a proven liar and totally untrustworthy.
                      Not yet she isn't.

                      By the way your responce to Jen (Babybird) was unjustified - you posted a comment to a public forum and she replied, that's what the forum is for, open discussion. Dodging the question the way you did makes you look like it's a vulnerability of your position, not to mention rude.

                      KR,
                      Vic.
                      Truth is female, since truth is beauty rather than handsomeness; this [...] would certainly explain the saying that a lie could run around the world before Truth has got its, correction, her boots on, since she would have to chose which pair - the idea that any woman in a position to choose would have just one pair of boots being beyond rational belief.
                      Unseen Academicals - Terry Pratchett.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Graham View Post
                        Bloody hell, Norma, you'll have me in tears in a minute...

                        One thing that's struck me is that neither at the time of his trial, nor while he was awaiting execution, nor as far as I'm aware since, has anyone who may have been a friend or a girl-friend or a "business" acquaintance ever come forward to support him or to try to convince the world that Hanratty was really a diamond geezer and couldn't have done the A6. All right, Terry Evans helped the defence, but he could hardly be described as a person who knew Hanratty well. And obviously his family supported him, as any family would. But there seems to be a general shortage of "character witnesses" prepared to speak up positively on his behalf.

                        Graham
                        Well Graham,remember Charles , Charlotte and Carol France and Louise Anderson , had once been his friends but had crossed the line to testify against him .And all four were either collapsing in a heap while giving evidence at his trial or committing suicide [ Charles France],or taking a drugs overdosed soon after [ Carol]. So no surprise there that they didnt want to speak about it much afterwards.
                        But the day after Hanratty"s conviction ,"The Sunday Pictorial" printed a middle page spread entitled "The Killer in my House" and according to the newspaper each had been paid to write "their little piece".In the article there isnt a trace of bitterness towards Hanratty: Dixie[Charles] wrote, of his "gentleness" and his "devotion to his mother".
                        he wrote:

                        he was gay and generous and he loved a joke....I accepted him as a member of my family".

                        All three of the Frances spoke in friendly tones about him despite his conviction.
                        Regarding his girl friends ,Mary Meaden and Gladys Deacon, they spoke kindly and highly of him in statements and in testimony at the time, but I doubt that for either of them Hanratty was to become anything but a painful memory as with Michael Sherrard,and in their case, as with the Charlotte and Carol France ,someone they actually preferred to try to forget about rather than "relive" their time with..
                        Graham, I hope you are moved by these---why else defend?
                        Last edited by Natalie Severn; 11-17-2010, 02:12 PM.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Natalie Severn View Post
                          Here are two examples that are pertinent to Valerie"s identifications:
                          1] Ms. Thompson [...snip...]
                          2] link http://law.jrank.org/pages/18786/Lineup.html
                          Hi Norma,

                          I completely agree that witnesses can mis-identify witnesses, but how often does this happen? Ms Thompson did mis-identify her rapist, but is this one case in a hundred, or one in a million?

                          As you know ,I dont believe for one moment anything about the DNA found on either the hanky or the knickers
                          Yes, you don't, Foot didn't, and neither do a minority of other people. But I along with the majority do.

                          I believe it is in fact deeply suspect and has been since the moment Alphon and Hanratty were found to share blood group O from semen testing in 1961.
                          I can see no reasonable explanation to believe that. One-third of men are type-O secretors, and that's a significant proportion, so it's not a surprise that Alphon and Hanratty were the same.

                          The more I learn of the case the more I believe it to have been a fabricated case against Hanratty,constructed in desperation ,possibly in good faith ,by Mr Acott and Mr Oxford, but "fabricated" nontheless.
                          I think it's much more likely that Hanratty was framed by a 3rd party rather than set-up by the Police.

                          The reason I think this,and I will reiterate, is because of the following:

                          First because the police used bogus statements from Nudds and later used Langdale to "swing things";
                          It was unfortunae that the Police had to use the testimony of Nudds to trace Hanratty, but obviously the facts were investigated and when they were found lacking - such as the switching rooms fiasco that incriminated Alphon - they called Nudds back in to try and get the truth from him.

                          Langdale can't have made much of an impression because of his own upcoming trial. I personally didn't believe him until the DNA, and even now I can't be sure he was telling the truth although it is possible.

                          Second because they "withheld evidence" in a capital case
                          There has to be a balance between supplying all the information that was used in an investigation, and deciding what is relevent. The Defence would then claim that pertinent facts were "buried" amongst the files.

                          Finally because the police were proven to have " tampered with witness statements "by modern forensic testing techniques ---thereby giving a very different meaning to what Hanratty had actually said to the police during his questioning.
                          The Police were not proven to have "tampered with witness statements". One set of interview notes had a couple of pages re-written, but surprise surprise we have not been told what those pages say by Woffinden's brigade because they do not include the last page which is the only contested piece of information - the "going to kip" reference.

                          KR,
                          Vic.
                          Truth is female, since truth is beauty rather than handsomeness; this [...] would certainly explain the saying that a lie could run around the world before Truth has got its, correction, her boots on, since she would have to chose which pair - the idea that any woman in a position to choose would have just one pair of boots being beyond rational belief.
                          Unseen Academicals - Terry Pratchett.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Natalie Severn View Post
                            Before you rush to judgment on Mr Sherrard who is one of the most highly respected and foremost advocates of his generation, you need to read his book which is full of different criminal cases and shows him to be a man of much integrity and compassion.
                            Hi Norma,

                            I would have agreed with you before I read the little snippets that have been posted here, but you've managed to convince me that his autobiography contains sensationalist, innaccurate drivel and I see no reason to go to the effort and expense to read rubbish.

                            KR,
                            Vic.
                            Truth is female, since truth is beauty rather than handsomeness; this [...] would certainly explain the saying that a lie could run around the world before Truth has got its, correction, her boots on, since she would have to chose which pair - the idea that any woman in a position to choose would have just one pair of boots being beyond rational belief.
                            Unseen Academicals - Terry Pratchett.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Limehouse View Post
                              Incidently - concerning Langdale's so-called 'inside knowledge' regarding where the abduction started - following the report from the prison officer who overheard Langdale bragging about Hanratty's 'confession' - langdale was interviewed by Acott so it is very likely he was given the inside knowledge.
                              Hi Julie,

                              That would depend upon Eatwell's evidence and exactly what he overheard, which would be before Acott got near him.

                              KR,
                              Vic.
                              Truth is female, since truth is beauty rather than handsomeness; this [...] would certainly explain the saying that a lie could run around the world before Truth has got its, correction, her boots on, since she would have to chose which pair - the idea that any woman in a position to choose would have just one pair of boots being beyond rational belief.
                              Unseen Academicals - Terry Pratchett.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Natalie Severn View Post
                                Charles, Charlotte and Carol France and Louise Anderson had once been his friends but had crossed the line to testify against him.
                                Dixie France left his wife a suicide letter which, the coroner said, expressed 'great bitterness against James Hanratty'.

                                And if Anderson was only against Hanratty for the sake of the trial, you would expect her to be complimentary towards him afterwards. But in the News of the World interview four years later she was still anti-Hanratty.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X