a6 murder

[Natalie Severn]

If Nudds wanted to frame Hanratty why did he not tell the Old Bill that he recognised Ryan as Hanratty? All the evidence points to Nudds not knowing who Ryan was, and if he did not know who he was, why should he want to frame him?

Ron

I don"t know which friends in the criminal underworld would have contacted Nudds or when ,but rest assured they did.Those cartridge cases,as Julie points out,had been sterilised of finger prints---which is sooooo unlikely if they had been "accidently" dropped/left whatever!
I don"t reckon Hanratty was in any way involved in it.He simply left that hotel, went to Liverpool to sell his "stuff",failed to find his fences ,went onto Rhyl,failed to find his fence,went back to Liverpool -got bored, headed for New Brighton and had some fun at the fair ground.
And do you know what....he was gadding about like that for 44 days---not in any sense "on the run" -on the nick a bit ,but then over to Ireland to get himself a driving licence,buy himself a car, show it off to Charles France and his family,taking his girl friends out in it,taking Louise Anderson out in it,taking his trousers to the dry cleaners to be tapered ---in line with the latest fashion, going to the Palladium to see Harry Seacombe-you name it.
Meanwhile,just 19 days after the murder the police are back at the Vienna Hotel,again, the day after Nudds had been sacked.
And there waiting for their approval and found only that day,were two identical, spanking clean,finger print free cartridge cases ---the exact same models in the exact same finger print free "spotless" condition ---as the other 60 were that had been found on the bus!
Because Valerie had failed to "identify" the masked gunman as Alphon , Alphon was dropped from inquiry.
Ryan was next on the list.

[RonIpstone]

Hi Natalie or Norma

I don"t know which friends in the criminal underworld would have contacted Nudds or when ,but rest assured they did.

In other words there is no evidence for this.

Those cartridge cases,as Julie points out,had been sterilised of finger prints---which is sooooo unlikely if they had been "accidently" dropped/left whatever!

Not really. The gun would eject the cartridge cases when it was broken for the purposes of loading or unloading, anyone wishing to avoid detection would load the gun wearing gloves, so any handling of the spent cartridge cases would be with a gloved hand.

I don"t reckon Hanratty was in any way involved in it.

We appreciate that for some this has become an article of faith rather than a reasoned view on all the evidence.

He simply left that hotel, went to Liverpool to sell his "stuff",failed to find his fences ,went onto Rhyl,failed to find his fence,went back to Liverpool -got bored, headed for New Brighton and had some fun at the fair ground.
And do you know what....he was gadding about like that for 44 days---not in any sense "on the run" -on the nick a bit ,but then over to Ireland to get himself a driving licence,buy himself a car, show it off to Charles France and his family,taking his girl friends out in it,taking Louise Anderson out in it,taking his trousers to the dry cleaners to be tapered ---in line with the latest fashion, going to the Palladium to see Harry Seacombe-you name it.

Hanratty had the ability to put the unpleasant fact that he had killed a man and raped and severely injured a woman behind him and block in out of his mind.

Meanwhile,just 19 days after the murder the police are back at the Vienna Hotel,again, the day after Nudds had been sacked.
And there waiting for their approval and found only that day,were two identical, spanking clean,finger print free cartridge cases ---the exact same models in the exact same finger print free "spotless" condition ---as the other 60 were that had been found on the bus!

As I understand it the two cartridge cases were spent and had been fired by the murder weapon. The sixty found on the bus were live rounds and had not been fired.

Because Valerie had failed to "identify" the masked gunman as Alphon , Alphon was dropped from inquiry.
Ryan was next on the list.

It was not unreasonable to assume that the murderer, or at least someone who had had possession of the murder gun, had at some stage stayed in the Vienna. Alphon had booked in for the night of the murder; Jim for the previous night. Each suspect had its problems. Alphon had been seen in the Vienna after the murder, but had stayed in Room 6. Hanratty had occupied Room 24, where the spent cartridges had been found, but not after the murder.

For Alphon to have been the murderer, then he must have abandoned the car in Redbridge before returning to the Vienna. A scenario that envisages Alphon driving the murder car from Beds to central London, finishing off his stay at the Vienna, then driving off to east London and Redbridge to abandon the car in the afternoon, and then taking a tube back to central London, is a nonsense. Yet no one identified Alphon as the driver at Redbridge.

Ron

[Limehouse]

Logic and those cartridges

Hi Natalie or Norma

Not really. The gun would eject the cartridge cases when it was broken for the purposes of loading or unloading, anyone wishing to avoid detection would load the gun wearing gloves, so any handling of the spent cartridge cases would be with a gloved hand.

Ron

Let's examine this a bit closer.

Are these shells or cartridges we are talking about? If cartridges - then the contents are lead shot and the cartridge would be ejected when the gun is fired.

Now - if the gun was fired to test it - because the user was unsure if it worked or how effective is was - then it is highly unlikely the user would fire it in a hotel room where it might be heard and/or cause damage. In the unlikely event that the gun WAS fired in the htoel room and was not heard - the user would immediately dispense with the ejected shells - not leave them lying on a chair. Again - if the gun was fired in the hotel room - where is the evidence of lead shot? Wht only cartridges?

Much more likely is the scenario whereby the user takes the gun somewhere remote and tests it there. In that scenario the user is unlikely to be returnning to the hotel and therefore cannot -carelessly or otherwise - leave the cartridges in the hotel. in the unlikley event that the used does intend to return to the hotel with the gun - he is hardly going to gather up the cartridges and take them with him.

If we are saying that the cartridges were actually shells - then the same applies except we are talking about bullets which would eject with the shells when fired. Where is there evidence of bullet damage in the hotel and would an unconfident user risk firing the gun in the hotel not knowing how loud it might sound and how much damage might be caused at close range?

Now think on - the police had the gun and ammo within almost 48 hours of the crime. So did whoever discarded the gun. It is much more likely that someone else fired that gun to get those shells/cartridges to plant evidence at an appropriate time if needed.

[Natalie Severn]

In other words there is no evidence for this.

[Ron] or Ronipstone[/B]

There was no evidence that Hanratty had anything to do with it either,neither at that stage or until the DNA was "discovered" on the two cloth items that had been "stored" for over 30 years in the police station. Nudds "evidence" was bullshit and so was Langdale"s .

Back later

[RonIpstone]

Let's examine this a bit closer.

Are these shells or cartridges we are talking about? If cartridges - then the contents are lead shot and the cartridge would be ejected when the gun is fired.

I understand that what was found on 11 September 1961 were two cartridge cases, by which I mean cartridges from which the bullets previously contained therein had been fired.

I understand that once the gun has been fired the cartridge case remains in the chamber until the gun is broken and then all cartridges and and cartridge cases contained in the chambers are ejected. This illustrates what I mean.

[NickB]

It is much more likely that someone else fired that gun to get those shells/cartridges to plant evidence at an appropriate time if needed.

If the cartridge cases were planted to incriminate someone, why assume the target to be ‘Ryan’ rather than Alphon?

[Dupplin Muir]

Hello all!

Although I haven't posted for some time, I still cast a skeptical eye over the thread from time to time, though I don't usually bother posting because the jimdiditites seem impervious to logic, and I hate this kind of yes-it-is/no-it-isn't/yes-it-is sort of debate.

As an example of what I mean, consider the alleged source of the DNA which the jimdiditites take to prove their case. It was locked up in a police station for 40 years, where only policemen had access, and where the public weren't allowed to go. Yet if anyone suggests that the sample might have been contaminated the response is 'Can you prove it?'. Well, excuse me, but if the police appoint themselves custodians of the evidence, and exclude everyone else, then it is THEIR job to prove that contamination didn't occur, and to do so to everyone's satisfaction - mere assurances that 'It didn't happen' are not adequate.

Similar strictures apply to FSS: basically they carry out their tests in camera with no public access, no independent oversight and no validation of their methods, yet once again, anyone who suggests that the tests were a bit dodgy is met with the same cry of 'Prove it!'.

I'd point out that the scientific method was developed precisely because scientists were prone to making errors and faking evidence, and the cornerstone of the scientific method is repeatability: an experiment which cannot be repeated is worthless. By carrying out their tests in secret and destroying the evidence, what FSS have basically done is to move the debate out of the realm of science and into the realm of faith: you either believe them or you don't. Having a science degree and wearing a white coat doesn't make you a scientist! What makes you a scientist is how well you abide by the rules of science.

Everyone knows that prosecution forensic experts lie, and that when these lies are revealed they are immediately glossed as 'mistakes', but this explanation simply won't hold water: genuine mistakes should, on balance, be neutral - roughly 50% should favour the defence and 50% favour the prosecution, but can anyone remember the last time FSS made a mistake that favoured the defence? The best comparison to FSS that I can think of is the 'scientists' who were employed by the tobacco companies to prove that smoking did you no harm - and lo-and-behold they found what their employers wanted!

As a radical suggestion, I'd like to point out that we actually have no proof that FSS carried out the tests [i]at all[/]: they could just have faked-up some paperwork claiming to have found Hanratty's DNA and destroyed the sample to prevent the fraud being detected. Oddly enough, there is some evidence for this scenario: FSS first claimed to have found Hanratty's DNA, and only later added hastily that they had also found that of MG and VS. It's just the kind of thing someone faking evidence might have forgotten about. In any event it wasn't very good scientific practice: they should have listed all the DNA they found, without focusing on that which suited the prosecution case. Incidentally, what about all the other DNA that should have been on the sample:

- The nurses who treated VS
- The police who collected and bagged the sample
- The forensic scientists who originally examined it

None of these people knew about DNA testing so they can't have taken any measures against their DNA getting on the sample.

DM

[Limehouse]

Welcome back Dupplin - and a magnificent post!

[Limehouse]

If the cartridge cases were planted to incriminate someone, why assume the target to be ‘Ryan’ rather than Alphon?

I haven't assumed anything. My theory fits whoever was meant to be in the frame. The police could easily have planted the cartridges to incriminate Alphon - especially as at that time Alphon was the main suspect and there was little firm evidence against him. My last few posts specify that I do not believe Hanratty left those cartridges in the room for the reasons I have outlined and that assumption equally applies to Alphon.

[RonIpstone]

I haven't assumed anything. My theory fits whoever was meant to be in the frame. The police could easily have planted the cartridges to incriminate Alphon - especially as at that time Alphon was the main suspect and there was little firm evidence against him. My last few posts specify that I do not believe Hanratty left those cartridges in the room for the reasons I have outlined and that assumption equally applies to Alphon.

Yes, but your theory, or reasons, depended on a false assumption, namely that the cartridge cases were ejected the moment the gun was fired. I trust that you now appreciate that the cases would be ejected when the gun was broken for reloading. And that when reloading the gun Hanratty would have taken the precaution to wear gloves to prevent his dabs getting on to the new cartridges. If he handled the spent cartridges which he left in Room 24 he would have done so with gloved hands.

[Limehouse]

Yes, but your theory, or reasons, depended on a false assumption, namely that the cartridge cases were ejected the moment the gun was fired. I trust that you now appreciate that the cases would be ejected when the gun was broken for reloading. And that when reloading the gun Hanratty would have taken the precaution to wear gloves to prevent his dabs getting on to the new cartridges. If he handled the spent cartridges which he left in Room 24 he would have done so with gloved hands.

And if he was careful enough to wear gloves to prevent getting his dabs on the cartridges he would hardly be foolish enough to leave them behind in the hotel. And you cannot call my assumption a false one. It's as valid as your loading assumption since neither of us really know why or how the cartridges were left in the room.

[RonIpstone]

And you cannot call my assumption a false one.

I can and I do. Your false assumption was that spent cartridges cases were ejected from the gun at the moment of firing. From this you deduced that Hanratty must have picked up the spent cartridges to import them into Room 24.

It's as valid as your loading assumption since neither of us really know why or how the cartridges were left in the room.

Agreed that neither us know how Hanratty left the two cartridge cases in the room. I have merely stated a theory as to how he could have done so without leaving his dabs on the discarded cartridge cases, my theory is based on correct assumptions regarding the loading/unloading of an Enfield .38 double action revolver.

[Limehouse]

[QUOTE=RonIpstone;155458]I can and I do. Your false assumption was that spent cartridges cases were ejected from the gun at the moment of firing. From this you deduced that Hanratty must have picked up the spent cartridges to import them into Room 24.

Rubbish! I wrote no such thing! Read my post again.

[Natalie Severn]

Hi Natalie or Norma
We appreciate that for some this has become an article of faith rather than a reasoned view on all the evidence.
on

Just give me one single piece of "evidence" against James Hanratty ,that Supt Acott had at his disposal at the trial---just one piece of evidence.

[RonIpstone]

Just give me one single piece of "evidence" against James Hanratty ,that Supt Acott had at his disposal at the trial---just one piece of evidence.

Hello Natalie or Norma

To be pedantic, I cannot give you a piece of evidence as all the evidence has either been destroyed or is in the custody of other persons. I can give you plenty of examples of evidence, e.g. murderer was blood group 'O' as was Hanratty, Hanratty was identified by Valerie Storie as the murderer and by the Redbridge witnesses as the driver of the murder car etc.

If your point is that there was no evidence at trial which conclusively and unequivocally pointed to Hanratty, then that is a fair point, but the jury must have added together the bits of evidence together with Jim's failure to satisfactorily account for his whereabouts on the night of 22/23 August 1961 and produced the verdict which it did. I may have mentioned this before but a Bedfordshire jury was likely to be very dim.