a6 murder

[Natalie Severn]

Hi Ron or Ronipstone,

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 the persons

But there was no evidence.
Blood group O was shared not only by Alphon but by a million or more other males in the Greater London area alone

Hanratty was identified by Valerie Storie as the murderer and by the Redbridge witnesses as the driver of the murder car etc.

.

We have discussed witness error in victim identification .It is far more common than is realised.



The Redbridge so called "witnesses" didnt see the driver of the murder car.It wasnt there when they said it was---by your own admission in the above post.

I agree with the rest of your post,

Norma

[Limehouse]

Hello Natalie or Norma
I may have mentioned this before but a Bedfordshire jury was likely to be very dim.

I would say they were much more likely to be BIASED.

[NickB]

I would say they were much more likely to be BIASED.

I don't see why they would be more biased that any other jury. It is not as if an outsider was being accused of coming in to town and killling a local.

With regard to the 'planting' issue, I still think that involves targeting a particular person - otherwise it is not a plant.

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.

I agree that there is no evidence the notes were changed. But I’ve always assumed that a ‘kip’ reference was on one of the re-written pages.

He is supposed to have said ‘kip’ at the end of each session, and a re-written page (15) could well have been at the end of the first much longer session.

The reason I think so is that, in the Appeal, Mansfied specifically mentioned that ‘kip’ might have been inserted. If the word had not appeared on any of the re-written pages I would have expected the judges to have mentioned this.

[Natalie Severn]

Nick,

The reason I think so is that, in the Appeal, Mansfied specifically mentioned that ‘kip’ might have been inserted. If the word had not appeared on any of the re-written pages I would have expected the judges to have mentioned this

I don"t think they mentioned anything that they didnt have to

I agree that there is no evidence the notes were changed.

.

Michael Sherrard QC is emphatic about police fiddling with witness statements ,he goes on "as modern tests indicate"-page 103.
Mr Sherrard also states that the Court of Appeal "did not think it necessary to decide about how the evidence was presented or whether as modern tests indicate and was part of Hanratty"s case,it had been tampered with.

Best
Norma

[Limehouse]

[QUOTE=NickB;155485]I don't see why they would be more biased that any other jury. It is not as if an outsider was being accused of coming in to town and killling a local.

QUOTE]

Well I don't see why they are more likely to be DIM than any other jury.

Of course a jury drawn from closer to the scene of crime is more likely to be biased. That is why the trial was moived back to Bedford from the Old Bailey. The jury are always going to identify with such a horrific crime happening on their doorstep. They are going to thinking ' it could have been me or mine'.

To illustrate this - some years ago - two high profile murder trials were moved from Peterborough to Nottingham because of the strength of local feeling concerning the crimes. It was felt the defendents would get a fairer trial away from the city.

[Victor]

Are you kidding? Type O is the most common blood type in the Kingdom!

Hi Julie,

Not kidding at all, one of a number of men reported to the police for acting strangely is then linked to the crime because the murderer spent the night before in the same hotel. It could have been any one of those men that happened to stay in the Vienna, but it was Alphon. I think that has about the same odds (1 in 3) of them being the same blood type.

But you are right about one thing - it was the cartridge cases that put the police on the trail of (eventually) Hanratty. And I absolutely refuse to believe that those cartridges were left there by Hanratty. Nothing anyone could say to me would convince me that he left them there - even if he rose out of the grave and confessed the murder to me himself - I feel sure he would be saying he never left those cartridges in that hotel.

I think that confirms Ron's faith over logic statement, if you are just going to disregard evidence you don't like then of course you'll think him innocent.

KR,
Vic.

[Victor]

I would like someone from your camp to explain to me how two cartridge cases - with no fringer prints on them at all - are left behind in a hotel room and not discovered for three weeks.

Hi Julie the banana,

False assumption 1 - there were no finger prints on them at all. None were found, but they appropriately looked for?

Why two cases? How many cartridges would it have taken to load the gun? What happened to the other cases? Did the 'killer' carefully discard the rest but carelessly left two behind?

Why not 2? It happened to be that 2 were left there, that doesn't mean the others were carefully discarded at all, just not found.

Oh no - wait a moment - we are supposed to connect Nudd's statement that 'Ryan returned to his room after checking out' with the cartridge cases aren't we? Of course! He returned to the room to incriminate himself!

He was in the room according to his own evidence, we don't need to believe Nudds at all.

We have already heard evidence - from the trial - that the chair in room 24 was moved when the bedding was changed following Hanratty's departure. We also have evidence that one of the cartridges 'rolled off the chair' when it was tipped forward during Crocker's inspection. SoI say it again - Hanratty did not leave those cartridge cases in that room - or I am a banana.

Have we? Not trial evidence, just contested, conflicting and denied statements. Hanratty could easily have left them there, if they fell out of his bag for example.

KR,
Vic

[Natalie Severn]

I think that confirms Ron's faith over logic statement, if you are just going to disregard evidence you don't like then of course you'll think him innocent.

What I see doesn"t constitute "evidence" in the real meaning of the word.Just the misfortune of a chap who had happened to stay in the same hotel as Alphon........Alphon being the only reason the police were led there in the first place.
The rest was just a shabby " fit up" by Nudds and a shuffling of the cards by Acott and Oxford.

[Victor]

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.

Hi DM,

Touche. To accuse those who believe Jim's guilt of being impervious to logic and then clearly demonstrating a blind faith in police corruption is bizarre.

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.

No actually, one was in MPL, the other in police labs.

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.

They have proved it hasn't happened - correctly identifying MG and VS DNA, and a 3rd profile which logically must be the rapists... and that belongs to Jim Hanratty.

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!'.

Hang on, wasn't Woffinden screaming out for those tests to take place - before the result came out of course.

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.

It was repeated, but the test is destructive, so you believe Neil Armstrong walked on the moon, or you join the conspiracy theorists, the results are there for all to see, and the raw data can probably still be re-examined, but you can't recreate the sample because that's how the test works - you can't recreate a urine sample after you've done a pregnancy test, you can only create a new one.

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!

And some said that mobile phones fry your brains - that one worked out didn't it?

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.

That's just nutjob conspiracy theory - FSS announced the conclusion - Hanratty's DNA was there, and then revealed the total results which have been selectively reported by newspapers and documentaries.

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.

Why should those definitely have been there? The scientist who gave evidence said they were aware of contamination and took precautions, so your last sentence is plain wrong.

KR,
Vic.

[Natalie Severn]

........
As an example of what I mean, consider the alleged source of the DNA which the jimdiditites take to prove their case. I[B]t was locked up in a police station for 40 years, where [i]only policemen had access[/i], and where the public weren't allowed to go[/U]. 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.........

DM

Absolutely.

[Victor]

What I see doesn"t constitute "evidence" in the real meaning of the word.Just the misfortune of a chap who had happened to stay in the same hotel as Alphon........Alphon being the only reason the police were led there in the first place.

Hi Norma,

The cartridge cases were the reason the Police were there.

KR,
Vic.

[Natalie Severn]

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[/QUOTE]


But ---said sample measured about 10cm X 6cm or 3" X 2"approx. Who knows where it had been ? Or where the "hanky" had been ? [/QUOTE]

[Natalie Severn]

Hi Norma,

The cartridge cases were the reason the Police were there.

KR,
Vic.

Hmmm.....a parting pressie from Nudds perhaps?

[Victor]

Hmmm.....a parting pressie from Nudds perhaps?

Hi Norma,

Well you are definitely in the conspiracy arena now, because Hanratty wasn't known to be Ryan until after the cartridge cases were discovered, so for Nudds to have left them means that he was framing someone known only as "Ryan", and that doesn't explain how he got hold of 2 spent cartridge cases from the murder weapon, and of course the chances of the blood types matching was 1 in 3.

That idea just doesn't add up.

KR,
Vic.

[Black Rabbit]

I may have mentioned this before but a Bedfordshire jury was likely to be very dim.

Hmmm. perhaps you would like to give us the benefit of your expert opinion and elaborate?

For the benefit of the dim you see.