a6 murder

[Natalie Severn]

How could this be possible when Hanratty/Ryan wasn't even in the frame for the murder when the hanky was found wrapped around the weapon a day or so later?

a]We do not know that the hanky presented in court wasnt simply one retrieved from Charlotte France"s laundry----or from Hanratty"s long period on remand.Its the easiest thing in the world to swap a white hanky.

Seriously, you need to look at the timings of events and see how the investigation involved....how the EVIDENCE led them to Hanratty...how the scenarios you are suggesting are totally impossible in the time frame.

No,Jen,I am sticking rigorously to the time frames.
Hanratty left the Vienna on the morning of the 22nd August.He didnt return to the hotel after the murder was committed as Alphon did.
Alphon,on the other hand, arrived some time on the 22nd from having been to Victoria Station and taken the Circle Line to the Broadway House Hotel>Vienna.
The following day, some 9 hours after the murder ,Alphon left the Vienna Hotel and from then to Victoria Station ,presumably by taking the 36A bus as it went door to door Sutherland Avenue to Victoria. where he deposited clothing and case.From there who knows----back to where the car was being scrupulously cleaned of fingerprints,semen,hairs and fibres?

[RonIpstone]

What violent attack was James Hanratty ever convicted of Jen? This is actually the main reason I believed Hanratty was innocent.

Hanratty had no record of violence .He had never been convicted of a violent crime.

Hello Norma or Natalie,

If you apply that reasoning no one would ever be convicted of any violent crime because they would never be convicted of their first violent crime because they had no previous record of violent crime.

Ron

[babybird67]

a]We do not know that the hanky presented in court wasnt simply one retrieved from Charlotte France"s laundry----or from Hanratty"s long period on remand.Its the easiest thing in the world to swap a white hanky.

You're missing the point Norma. How could the handkerchief have been taken from him when on remand, when it was found around the murder weapon BEFORE he was on remand? Before, even, he was suspected of being involved in the A6 at all? Was the person framing him psychic? Did they anticipate he would suddenly be discovered several months later to have been the man known as Ryan that stayed at the Vienna the night before the murder? Do you not see how ridiculous such a contention is?

Why would France want to frame a friend who was not in the frame for a murder, by deliberating taking something that could be linked to Hanratty and wrapping it round the murder weapon? Why would anyone do that?

No,Jen,I am sticking rigorously to the time frames.
Hanratty left the Vienna on the morning of the 22nd August.He didnt return to the hotel after the murder was committed as Alphon did.
Alphon,on the other hand, arrived some time on the 22nd from having been to Victoria Station and taken the Circle Line to the Broadway House Hotel>Vienna.
The following day, some 9 hours after the murder ,Alphon left the Vienna Hotel and from then to Victoria Station ,presumably by taking the 36A bus as it went door to door Sutherland Avenue to Victoria. where he deposited clothing and case.From there who knows----back to where the car was being scrupulously cleaned of fingerprints,semen,hairs and fibres?

No you're not. You're suggesting a frame up when Hanratty wasn't a suspect until evidence discovered later in the investigation led the Police to him. You're suggesting someone took his hankie and wrapped it round the gun to frame him, when nobody knew his movements would even fit in with the frame....nobody knew his blood type, nobody knew he would not have an alibi. You're suggesting the hankie might have been taken while he was on remand, when it had already been found around the murder weapon months before he was on remand! That's physically impossible!

Why do you keep referring to Alphon. IT has been accepted by Hanratty's defence team that Alphon COULD NOT HAVE BEEN the A6 murderer. Fact.

[babybird67]

Hello Norma or Natalie,

If you apply that reasoning no one would ever be convicted of any violent crime because they would never be convicted of their first violent crime because they had no previous record of violent crime.

Ron

thank you Ron you have said succinctly and eloquently what i was trying to say in my own post!

Jen

[Natalie Severn]

Jen,

there is always a first time. It is ridiculous to suggest because one hasn't before been convicted of violence one is incapable of it.

True,but that is not what you said.You implied he had previous convictions for violence.

But there was semen on the knickers when tested for DNA. It was the part of the knickers worn by Valerie after the rape. Semen was there. It was Hanratty's. How could his have been present but nobody else's, when we know somebody else's was there in 1960

Can I refer you to the current case regarding Ian Tomlinson ,cited above.Here is an example where the forensics appear to have being used to falsify his cause of death.

Do you really think a Police investigation is so incompetent as to throw away the part of the knickers that actually had the forensic evidence on? Come on...please...listen to yourself

I want to make it clear that I dont put anything past them--see Michael Sherrard QC"s quotes,one of our leading lawyers, about the fiddling and tampering revealed by modern forensic testing---and more .

However,despite all my misgivings,I happen to believe Supt Acott acted in good faith .I think he believed Hanratty was guilty.That is why he allowed himself to alter witness statements and withhold the Redbridge witness statements and other evidence.As Henry Kissinger once said with regard to an allegation by Christopher Hitchens about his policy over Chile in the 70"s 'we have to do whatever it takes"

[babybird67]

Jen,

True,but that is not what you said.You implied he had previous convictions for violence.

I did no such thing! I was being sarcastic - commenting that the supporters of Hanratty often trot out such nonsense as 'evidence' that he couldnt be capable of the murder and rape in the A6. I suggest you read what I wrote again.

Can I refer you to the current case regarding Ian Tomlinson ,cited above.Here is an example where the forensics appear to have being used to falsify his cause of death.

Not really. I'm discussing Hanratty and the evidence in this case. Tomlinson has no bearing on Hanratty's guilt.

[RonIpstone]

How could this be possible when Hanratty/Ryan wasn't even in the frame for the murder when the hanky was found wrapped around the weapon a day or so later?

Hello Babybird67 or Jen,

Some little while ago on this forum I posted extracts of a play I had written. I wont repost the extracts but you can follow the link in the quote below to see what you think.

Ron

At half-time in the Liverpool -v- Arsenal game this afternoon and inspired by Norma or Natalie tale about a play with Hanratty and Alphon, I decided to do a bit of playwrighting myself.

[babybird67]

Hello Babybird67 or Jen,

Some little while ago on this forum I posted extracts of a play I had written. I wont repost the extracts but you can follow the link in the quote below to see what you think.

Ron

I'd like to Ron but i can't see a link...can you repost?


thanks

Jen

[Natalie Severn]

You're missing the point Norma. How could the handkerchief have been taken from him when on remand, when it was found around the murder weapon BEFORE he was on remand? Before, even, he was suspected of being involved in the A6 at all? Was the person framing him psychic? Did they anticipate he would suddenly be discovered several months later to have been the man known as Ryan that stayed at the Vienna the night before the murder? Do you not see how ridiculous such a contention is?

Why would France want to frame a friend who was not in the frame for a murder, by deliberating taking something that could be linked to Hanratty and wrapping it round the murder weapon? Why would anyone do that?

Look,
What I am saying is the hanky was not examined for any forensic evidence in 1961.Fact.
We know it was handled by Hanratty at his trial--as indeed it was handled by many others---it was offered to him by Swanwick.But what was actually offered? A hanky panky hanky that had been "conveniently" found while Hanratty was in custody and "swapped" ?
This hanky panky hanky was kept for forty odd years in a drawer at Bedford police station.Hmmmn---perfect laboratory conditions to ensure lack of contamination you would all agree.

[Natalie Severn]

HBi Jen,

id no such thing! I was being sarcastic - commenting that the supporters of Hanratty often trot out such nonsense as 'evidence' that he couldnt be capable of the murder and rape in the A6. I suggest you read what I wrote again.

Ok, the point I was making being that Hanratty did not have any convictions for violence.

[Natalie Severn]

Hi Jen,

Quote:
Can I refer you to the current case regarding Ian Tomlinson ,cited above.Here is an example where the forensics appear to have being used to falsify his cause of death.
Not really. I'm discussing Hanratty and the evidence in this case. Tomlinson has no bearing on Hanratty's guilt.

I thought we were discussing the "forensic evidence?and how "forensic' evidence can be falsified?
I was giving a relevant example of how this can happen,even today.

Norma

[RonIpstone]

I'd like to Ron but i can't see a link...can you repost?


thanks

Jen

Hello Jen or BB67,

Just click on the white/green arrow next to RonIpstone in the quote, that should take you to the relevant post.

Ron

[babybird67]

Look,
What I am saying is the hanky was not examined for any forensic evidence in 1961.Fact.
We know it was handled by Hanratty at his trial--as indeed it was handled by many others---it was offered to him by Swanwick.But what was actually offered? A hanky panky hanky that had been "conveniently" found while Hanratty was in custody and "swapped" ?
This hanky panky hanky was kept for forty odd years in a drawer at Bedford police station.Hmmmn---perfect laboratory conditions to ensure lack of contamination you would all agree.

Right...so now you are arguing that it wasn't taken from him on remand at all...but maybe this plain white hankie, a description of which nobody has, and nobody knows whether it was monogrammed or otherwise identifiable as Jim's without his confession that it was his, was swapped in the courtroom or later planted in the Police drawer???? Seriously you are arguing that? Norma...honestly...take a step back...think about it...

[babybird67]

Hello Jen or BB67,

Just click on the white/green arrow next to RonIpstone in the quote, that should take you to the relevant post.

Ron

LOL! Yep that about sums it all up nicely. Nice piece of writing.

Jen

[babybird67]

Hi Jen,


I thought we were discussing the "forensic evidence?and how "forensic' evidence can be falsified?
I was giving a relevant example of how this can happen,even today.

Norma

No. We're discussing the forensic evidence in the Hanratty case and how semen and a profile that was on the sample in the 1960s could possible have been totally eradicated when examined later in the century.