a6 murder

[babybird67]

HBi Jen,

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

And...?

[Natalie Severn]

And...?

So on the basis of no evidence of any previous record of violence but a series of convictions for burglary, Hanratty made a good candidate for the A6 atrocity?
What other so called "evidence" linked Hanratty to the crime because there was nothing,forensically to do so in 1961. Nothing to prove he ever got into that Morris Minor,nothing to prove he even got onto the 36A bus , no fingerprints on the gun that was found or on the 60 cartridge cases found with it---the hanky could have been anyone"s in actual fact
No evidence to link him to the area ; No evidence in the car viz:


In May 2002 after the ruling Hanratty"s trial barrister,who became one of our leading lawyers had this to say:
MICHAEL SHERRARD: No hair, no blood, no fibres, nothing at all was found that linked Hanratty to that motor-car.

Just Nudds and Langdale.Nudds having given two totally different pieces of evidence about Room 24 and the Vienna Hotel; one implicating Alphon,two implicating Hanratty.
Evidence?Complete tosh and actually utterly disgraceful and extraordinary reading for anybody who has the slightest regard for the truth or any interest in whether justice was actually done in this travesty of a trial. .

.

[Limehouse]

All you are doing here is being deliberately provocative,are you hoping one of us will rise to the bait to the extent of getting one of us banned with all this talk about "sock puppets? Is that your game?
With regards to the 1961 trial I have cited chapter and verse of what Michael Sherrard QC had to say in 2002 and as recently as 2009 about what went on at that trial viz a vis police fiddling and tampering with witnesses statements also regarding withheld and crucial evidence eg the other Redbridge witnesses ,never called, over the sighting of the Morris Minor in Avondale Crescent which was found at 6.30 pm.
Ok. I was unable to find,last night , the quote I needed to illustrate how I think the tiny piece of 42 year old cloth , used for DNA evidence in the 2002 ruling, may not ever have had the rapists DNA on it,simply because the rapists semen was lost when the piece of cloth was removed from the knickers.For all we know that particular semen may only have been on the slips.It could have been anywhere since ,in the aftermath of the horific ordeal that had been experienced by Valerie, her underclothing was said to be twisted in a curious way when she arrived at the hospital.

So I drew attention to my whole position regarding this case,which is that I believe there had never been any solid evidence against James Hanratty , that in the case of the Vienna Hotel, the "evidence" is a lot of criminal nonsense,which relied on the word of Nudds.In fact the whole case turned [apart from the evidence of VS] on the evidence of two narks, Roy William Langdale and George Richard Nudds [alias Baker,Bartlett Beaumont,Glickberg,Itter,Knight] , both long term criminals detested among the criminal fraternity.
So, in my opinion, it had all been very likely to have been manufactured by those who found in James Hanratty a "patsy" on whom to pin blame.
I reminded posters that Duplin Muir in his post called into question the whole role of forensic experts called in on behalf of the prosecution, and he cites examples from several past injustices.
I am posting the Guardian Newspaper"s recent research into the case of the forensic pathologist Dr Patel who examined the body of Ian Tomlinson.Here we have precisely the sort of thing that can and does happen.This has been front page news in allnewspapers as it caused a furore,due to the wide publicity given to Ian Tomlinson"s death.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/nov/16/ian-tomlinson-pathologist-misconduct-allegations

Best

Norma

That is a shocking report Norma and it illustrates that we put a lot of faith in such experts and believe that they will do their job thoroughly and honestly and that we can trust the outcome but the sad truth is that we cannot always trust their judgement.

The doubts I have had over the Hanratty case were strong before the DNA results and whatever anyone says about the indisputable nature of the results I cannot dismiss my doubts and put absolute trust in the results - particularly as the first set of results using a different trechnique produced no - or inconclusive results.

[babybird67]

Norma

so what if there were no previous convictions? Ian Huntley, Peter Sutcliffe, John Christie...the list of people who have committed violent crimes without having previous records for them goes on and on....it is a nonsense to suggest there must be previous form for violence for someone to be guilty of it!

[babybird67]

So on the basis of no evidence of any previous record of violence but a series of convictions for burglary, Hanratty made a good candidate for the A6 atrocity?
.

No he makes a good candidate on the basis of the EVIDENCE in the case.

His hanky round the murder weapon. Murder weapon hidden in his favourite spot. Lied about his alibi. Three respectable citizens identified him as either being at the scene of the crime or in the murder car afterwards. Cartridge cases from the murder weapon found in his room. HIS SEMEN ON THE VICTIM'S UNDERWEAR IN A DISTRIBUTION WHICH PROVES SEXUAL INTERCOURSE TOOK PLACE....I.E. NOT SPILLED, NOT CONTAMINATED, BUT THERE AS A SEXUAL MIXTURE UPON HER KNICKERS!

[Limehouse]

so what if there were no previous convictions? Ian Huntley, Peter Sutcliffe, John Christie...the list of people who have committed violent crimes without having previous records for them goes on and on....it is a nonsense to suggest there must be previous form for violence for someone to be guilty of it!

John Christie did have previous convictions for violence prior to his arrest for murder. He served several prison terms for assult.

Peter Sutcliffe - as early as 1968 - was hitting women over the head with rocks inside socks. He was questioned but no action was taken. There is a witness to these assults.

[Natalie Severn]

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.

So you are setting the agenda on the debate about the forensic evidence produced at Hanratty"s trial that you asked me to comment on?


Modern forensic handwriting tests proved the police had tampered with witness statements.Do you accept that or not?*
If so then are we not entitled to ask whether other items presented may have been "tampered with"?

*If you are saying its not so then you are saying Michael Sherrard is lying in his 2009 biography.It can be found on page 103.
Norma

PS
Hey Jen,I am in North Wales and the weather is glorious here.I am off out to enjoy it!

[Ally]

So on the basis of no evidence of any previous record of violence but a series of convictions for burglary, Hanratty made a good candidate for the A6 atrocity?


.

Hi Natalie. Just because there is no previous history of violence isn't sufficient reason to exclude him. We have a similar case here in the States where a person who had only ever been convicted of burglary committed an absolutely brutal murder of an entire family, including rape of the mother, and rape of pre-teen girls and lighting them all on fire and leaving them to die.

Just because someone has no prior history of violence doesn't mean they aren't capable of it given specific circumstances.

[Natalie Severn]

Hi Ally,

Hi Natalie. Just because there is no previous history of violence isn't sufficient reason to exclude him

I totally agree.
Will return to this point but its arisen in part by accident here today.
Best
Norma

[Limehouse]

Hello Norma or Natalie,

Thank you, that's (or that"s as you would have it) very gracious.

Although it does not seem to have sunk in with some contributors on the forum that the spent cartridge cases are ejected when the gun is broken not when it is fired.

Ron

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE
COURT OF APPEAL (CRIMINAL DIVISION)
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
Date: 10 May 2002
Before :
THE LORD CHIEF JUSTICE OF ENGLAND AND WALES
LORD JUSTICE MANTELL
MR JUSTICE LEVESON
Between :
REGINA Responde
nt
- and -
JAMES HANRATTY deceased
by his Brother Michael Hanratty
Appellant
Mr Michael Mansfield QC and Mr Henry Blaxland QC



Presented to the Court of Appeal:


36. On 11 September 1961 (some twenty days after the killing), two cartridge cases
were found in room 24 at the Vienna Hotel, Sutherland Avenue, Maida Vale; it was
later established scientifically that they had been fired from the murder weapon.

http://www.denverda.org/DNA_Documents/Hanratty.PDF

So – who is having trouble grasping things Ron??

Now - once again – I post my previous conclusions concerning the cartridge cases:

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.

[babybird67]

John Christie did have previous convictions for violence prior to his arrest for murder. He served several prison terms for assult.

Peter Sutcliffe - as early as 1968 - was hitting women over the head with rocks inside socks. He was questioned but no action was taken. There is a witness to these assults.

Thanks. Didn't know that about Christie.

Point about Sutcliffe stands...no known convictions for violence. For all we know, Hanratty could have been hitting people round the head too but not been convicted of it anywhere.

In 1968 Sutcliffe would have been 22...maybe early twenties is the age in which propensities towards violence begin to show themselves. After all, as I have argued all along, there always has to be a first time for it doesn't there.

[Limehouse]

Thanks. Didn't know that about Christie.

Point about Sutcliffe stands...no known convictions for violence. For all we know, Hanratty could have been hitting people round the head too but not been convicted of it anywhere.

In 1968 Sutcliffe would have been 22...maybe early twenties is the age in which propensities towards violence begin to show themselves. After all, as I have argued all along, there always has to be a first time for it doesn't there.

Of course BB - there does have to be a first time. Hanratty didn't have any known tendency toward violence but- as you say - we can't be sure. No one came forward to say he did - unlike Sutcliffe - whose best friend testified that he knew Sutcliffe had been attacking women for some years.

[babybird67]

So you are setting the agenda on the debate about the forensic evidence produced at Hanratty"s trial that you asked me to comment on?

Setting the agenda? No. Telling you it's irrelevant to the case this thread is dealing with, in my opinion...yes. I don't believe in four decades worth of conspiracy theories. I don't believe scientists would fiddle the results of this particular test just to prove a small time crook guilty of something just to back up a perceived establishment miscarriage of justice.

Modern forensic handwriting tests proved the police had tampered with witness statements.Do you accept that or not?*

I accept part of them may have been rewritten which is regrettable however i believe the investigations showed that they were essentially the same as before...no material differences from what was established was in the originals. I stand to be corrected on that perception as I don't own any of the books and I am recalling facts from having read the copies Graham kindly lent to me over a year ago now when i first joined the forum.

If so then are we not entitled to ask whether other items presented may have been "tampered with"?

Never been against asking questions. Am very against, asking the same ones over and over and speculating wild conspiracy theories and implausibilities to explain what is much better explained by logic, common sense and evidence.

*If you are saying its not so then you are saying Michael Sherrard is lying in his 2009 biography.It can be found on page 103.
Norma

PS
Hey Jen,I am in North Wales and the weather is glorious here.I am off out to enjoy it!

Most pertinent quote by Sherrard I believe was his conclusion after the final appeal that it was a great relief to him that the wrong man had not been hanged.

Weather bright but cold here Norma...my pipes have frozen though! Enjoy your day out.

[babybird67]

Of course BB - there does have to be a first time. Hanratty didn't have any known tendency toward violence but- as you say - we can't be sure. No one came forward to say he did - unlike Sutcliffe - whose best friend testified that he knew Sutcliffe had been attacking women for some years.

It's a shame that friend didn't report these attacks earlier...maybe some lives could have been saved. That's where misguided loyalty gets us sometimes i suppose/

[Natalie Severn]

Jen,

No. Telling you it's irrelevant to the case this thread is dealing with, in my opinion...yes. I don't believe in four decades worth of conspiracy theories. I don't believe scientists would fiddle the results of this particular test just to prove a small time crook guilty of something just to back up a perceived establishment miscarriage of justice.

Thing is it would have cost them a fortune had they not put all their eggs in the LCN DNA test result basket and clung to it like drowning men.

Never been against asking questions. Am very against, asking the same ones over and over and speculating wild conspiracy theories and implausibilities to explain what is much better explained by logic, common sense and evidence

No logic,no common sense and certainly no evidence.
Just the word of a bunch on gangsters that happened to suit the powers that be.

If the question never gets fully addressed one is entitled to ask it again.

Best Norma
Had a lovely two mile walk to Rhyl and back.