a6 murder

[babybird67]

Jen,



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.

Sorry, Ms Storie, and the Redbridge witnesses were gangsters? The scientists doing the DNA tests were gangsters? A positive identification from the victim doesn't qualify as evidence? Wow...that has to be one of the most fantastic suggestions I have ever read.

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

Which question hasn't been addressed?

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

Fab. Glad you had a nice time.

[Natalie Severn]

re Sherrard"s 2002 "WICKED BEYOND BELIEF" statement

Hi Jen,
Perhaps you would be interested in reading this post from julie q on the Redbridge witness testimony that was withheld at the 1961 trial.

Hi Vic and Norma.
I have been reading your debate regarding the reliability of identification witnesses ,including that of Skillet and Trower In the court of appeal judgement<paragraph 152> which I asume you both have a copy of, reference was made to the non disclosure of witness statements which may have cast aspersions on the itegrity of of the Skillet , Trower evidence . As they were refered to only briefly in the judgement I would like to give a fuller account of their contents .
DOREEN MILNE.
Doreen Milne owned a Morris Minor car the same model and colour as the one used in the murder .Throughout the summer of 1961 she had parked her car at around 8 am every weekday morning in Avondale Crescent at exactly the same location as the murder car was found.She would then travel by train to her work in London. In the week preceding the murder however the owner of the house ,in front of which she was in the habit of parking her car,had asked her if she would refrain from doing so, he had just errected a new fence in front of of his property and for some reason did not want cars parking close to it. She decided that the easiest solution was to park her car on the opposite side of the street .Doreen Milne said in her witness statement that when she left her car in this location on the 23rd August at 8.15 am she was certain that no other car was parked opposite .
A witness statement disclosed to the defence and used by the prosecution at the trial was that of DORIS ATHOE
Doris Athoe lived in Avondale Crescent and said that on the morning of the 23rd August she had noticed a Morris Minor car parked in the crescent and that it had remained there all day.There is every reason to believe that the car seen by Doris Athoe was the one belonging to Doreen Milne , Doris Athoe did not recall seeing 2 Morris Minor cars in the crescent as she would have done had the murder car also been there.
An even more compelling statement not disclosed was that of MARGARET THOMPSON
Margaret Thompson lived in Avondale Crescent and at around 5.30pm on the 23rd August she had left her home with her 3 year old son, to go to a shop on the corner of the crescent to purchase some ingredients for a meal she was preparing .On her return from the shop at 5.45pm she found the footpath obstructed by a Morris Minor car parked on it,forcing her and her young son to walk onto the roadway, something which had annoyed her.
When she saw police activity in the crescent later that evening she immediately went out and made a statement in which she claimed the car had definitely not been there at 5.30pm .
Another witness statement not disclosed was that of WILIAM LEE.
Willaim Lee was a HGV lorry driver and on the 23rd August at around 6.30am was driving his lorry southwards on the A6 some 100 miles north of Bedford when a Morris Minor car pulled out from a junction causing him to take evasive action to aviod a collision . So incensed was Mr Lee that he followed the car noting its registration number,when he later stopped for a break and learned of the murder which had occured further south on the A6 and the number of the car involved he called the police and gave a statement.The CCRC discovered this statement in 1998 and Mr Lee was traced and iterviewed .He reiterated what he had said in his original statement
including the fact that the driver of the Morris Minor had been wearing a green woollen hat with a pom pom on it. Later in their investigations the CCRC obtained a file containing photographs which included coloured images of the interior of the car and the boot . When those photographs were enhanced and enlargened , a green woollen hat with a poom pom on it,exactly as described in Mr Lee's statement to the Derbyshire police in 1961, could be seen in the boot of the car.
If the defence had been given access to those witnesses it is not unreasonable to suppose that a persuasive argument could have ben made to the jury that the murder car was not in the vicinity of Avondale Crescent at 7.am that morning and was therefor not the car seen by Skillet and Trower
I think it was non disclosure of this type that prompted Michael Sherrard to describe the people responsible for withholding it as wicked beyond belief .
Even the Appeal court judgement ,<paragraph 157> descibes it as the "high water mark of non disclosure
Hope this of some help.
regards julie q

[babybird67]

Hi Jen,
Perhaps you would be interested in reading this post from julie q on the Redbridge witness testimony that was withheld at the 1961 trial.

Thanks but i don't agree with the language being used.

While i agree that conflicting witness statements should have been disclosed to the jury, i do not accept that such conflicting statements cast 'aspersions' on the 'integrity' of the Redbridge witnesses.

Neither had any motive to lie. Both picked Hanratty from a line up as the man they had seen in the Morris Minor in the area on that day. The Morris Minor was in the area...it was dumped there. Nobody knows exactly when and what time, but it was certainly found there.

You will often find conflicting witness statements in cases. Look at Caroline Maxwell who swears she saw Mary Kelly on the morning after it is commonly accepted she was murdered. It doesn't reflect on witness integrity. One evaluates the witness testimony and makes a choice.

Three upstanding citizens identified Hanratty either at the scene or later in the murder car; they chose him from a line up as that man. None of them were gangsters. None had incentive or motive to lie. You can say that's not enough evidence for you, if you wish, that's your choice, but to say there is no evidence at all linking Hanratty to the crime is just plain incorrect. There is plenty of evidence. Whether you blindly reject or not is always your choice but it doesn't alter the fact that it is there.

[Natalie Severn]

Jen,

Thanks but i don't agree with the language being used.

-Can you be a bit specific and say what the language is you disagree with?

-The jury themselves at the 1961 trial managed to spot the short comings in James Trower"s supposed sighting,after it had been demonstrated to them that his evidence didnt match what he could possibly have seen what he said he had seen.

-John Skillett"s identification was neutralized by his companion ,Edward Blackhall"s non-identification and statement.Blackhall picked out men who looked "nothing like Hanratty".

That left Valerie Storie who had first, wrongly identified a man named Michael Clark.He looked nothing like Hanratty either from what we have been allowed to know about him[his characteristics were very different from Hanratty when she picked him out -dark, close cropped hair,heavy build]. Moreover,soon after this parade,Valerie Storie said that the man she picked out looked like the newspaper photographs of Peter Alphon,which appeared in the press soon after he had been released.

Three upstanding citizens identified Hanratty either at the scene or later in the murder car; they chose him from a line up as that man.

No,they did not,Jen .You are mistaken here.

1]Trower"s "evidence" was discredited by the defence lawyers who had made measurements of the distances and it was accepted by the jury as not "adding up"/not being possible to have seen what he alleged he had seen. Moreover Mr Trower"s friend,Paddy Hogan also said he couldnt possibly have seen the driver as Trower arrived far too late.

2]Skillett"s evidence was neutralized by his companion"s non-identification.

3]Valerie"s I have discussed above.Her identification was also thrown into question by her positive identification of Michael Clark.

[Derrick]

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.

Hi Julie
It wasn't a different technique per se. The tests in 2004 used STR testing at 6 loci and is called SGM. The 1998 tests subverted the newly developed SGM+ (10 loci) by adding an additional 6 cycles (34 instead of 28) to the amplification step.
Derrick

[Derrick]

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!

Really?
Where is the evidence it was Hanratty's hanky? He touched it at trial. His cells are on it.
You are relying on France to spot Hanratty in on the Bus. Again no evidence of Hanratty putting there.
Alibi? Mrs Dinwoodie bollocksed up the prosecution case to the extent that they suggested that Hanratty took an air service to Dorney!
3 respectible citizens. Are you sure?
One, Valerie, is practically blind without her glasses and made the visual id so important.
One, Mr Skillett, was so incensed over anothers bad driving, whereas Blackhall was more than likely calm. Blackhall is certain the driver wasn't Hanratty.
The other, Mr Trower, picked Hanratty out in less than 5 seconds when he probably didn't see the Moggie driver at all.
Spent cases from the gun were found 19 days after Hanratty had stayed in the room. Not very convincing as even a doss house gets cleaned.
The DNA is LCN and wasn't quantified. The FSS just picked out any peaks that matched alleles in the referential profiles available.
Noone can state exactly how any DNA was deposited by a DNA test alone. Anyone who believes this is an idiot.

Evidence....yeah right

Derrick

[Derrick]

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.

You will often find conflicting witness statements in cases. Look at Caroline Maxwell who swears she saw Mary Kelly on the morning after it is commonly accepted she was murdered. It doesn't reflect on witness integrity. One evaluates the witness testimony and makes a choice.

You either accept evidence in one case pertaining to another and/or other cases or you don't. Make your mind up Jennifer or be called a hypocrite.

[Limehouse]

Hi Julie
It wasn't a different technique per se. The tests in 2004 used STR testing at 6 loci and is called SGM. The 1998 tests subverted the newly developed SGM+ (10 loci) by adding an additional 6 cycles (34 instead of 28) to the amplification step.
Derrick

Thanks Derrick. It's all crystal clear to me now!! Science aside - the DNA evidence does not convince me because it cannot account for the doubts I had concerning the nature and integrity of the original 'evidence' presented at the trial. Thanks again for trying to clarify though

[Derrick]

Thanks Derrick. It's all crystal clear to me now!! Science aside - the DNA evidence does not convince me because it cannot account for the doubts I had concerning the nature and integrity of the original 'evidence' presented at the trial. Thanks again for trying to clarify though

Julie
The fact that essentially the same test proved inconclusive one minute and determines Hantatty's guilt the next should sound alarm bells ringing to anyone who has a sensible bone in their body!

This excludes the fact that the evidential sample wasn't stored in an ideal fashion for nigh on 30 years.

I have seen FSS documents, in other cases, which would make your hair curl if you knew that innocent persons are being sentenced to long stretches in chokey based on evidence that is not much more than pig shite.

Defence attornies and juries will believe anything it seems.

Derrick

[RonIpstone]

We should never lose sight of the fact that it was the Hanratty team that instigated the recent scientific analysis.

I quote Bob Woffinden here

where he says:

"Finally, one must look at the scientific exhibits. In 1991, we asked the forensic science laboratories whether there were any surviving exhibits.

We were shown a small fragment of material from Valerie Storie's underwear and immediately asked whether it could be subjected to analysis using contemporary DNA techniques.

The Home Office originally refused this request, but the work, which is still in progress, was finally undertaken by the Criminal Cases Review Commission. It is a very small sample of material, and the work is very intricate.

However, I have no doubt that when the work has been properly concluded, these scientific tests, too, will demonstrate that he had nothing to do with this crime.

In fact the scientific tests have demonstrated that Alphon had nothing to do with it, as admitted by the Hanrattys' Counsel, and that no person other than Jim could have done it.

The Hanrattys appear to have had the benefit of two experts acting on their behalf neither of whom has criticised the testing procedures in the manner now sought to be done so on this forum by the several unqualified contributors who have ventured their half baked opinions.

[Natalie Severn]

Ron or Ronipstone,
regarding the question of how DNA can disappear I am posting some links for you to study.The LCNDNA tests that were used on the 40 year piece of cloth have now been banned for use in Courts of Appeal throughout many American States.The method has been rejected because it is subject to so much
error
.http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0608182541.htm

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080507124555AAFg8aZ

[babybird67]

Really?
Where is the evidence it was Hanratty's hanky? He touched it at trial. His cells are on it.

HI Re...Derrick.

Hanratty said it was his. You believe everything else he says as if it was the gospel truth, why not that? His snot cells were on it. Are you seriously suggesting when asked to handle it at the trial he took it and blew his nose on it then? LOL!

You are relying on France to spot Hanratty in on the Bus. Again no evidence of Hanratty putting there.

Again, dear, i am relying on Hanratty's own admission that he used the back seats of bus to dispose of his unwanted STOLEN ILLEGAL goods. And the corroboration of his acquaintance France underlines that. Nobody had to see him. He told everyone that's where he left stuff. That's how thick he was.

Alibi? Mrs Dinwoodie bollocksed up the prosecution case to the extent that they suggested that Hanratty took an air service to Dorney!

Mrs Dinwoodie did not meet Hanrarry. She met someone with a Celtic (not London) accent who bought cigarettes from her (Hanratty did not smoke) and who asked for directions and had a whole conversation with her which Hanrarry himself couldn't corroborate, on a day in which Hanratty was with the France family. And I'm the idiot? LOL!

3 respectible citizens. Are you sure?

Yep totally sure thanks. None of them were criminals. That tends to get most people's respect, unless you're totally unethical and twist the morals and make criminals into Gods and victims into criminals. I don't inhabit that mad universe. Nor would I suggest do the majority of responsible and decent citizens.

One, Valerie, is practically blind without her glasses and made the visual id so important.

LOL! Great. Watch out literally blind people. You can be attacked with impunity. Criminals, heed Derrick's brilliant reasoning... just wear a mask or rape the blind and their testimony can be dismissed and you can literally get away with murder. Thank God you're not in charge of law and order in this country. FYI she was NOT practically blind. She wore glasses that's all. She not only identified her rapist by sight, but by sound, making her identification doubly sound in my mind. And what has her eyesight got to do with her respectability anyway? Are you suggesting short-sighted people must be criminals?

One, Mr Skillett, was so incensed over anothers bad driving, whereas Blackhall was more than likely calm.

Seriously? So incensed that constitutes a motive to finger someone for a murder and get them hanged? LOL! And you think people scratch around for a motive from Hanratty.

The other, Mr Trower, picked Hanratty out in less than 5 seconds when he probably didn't see the Moggie driver at all.

How the hell do you know what he saw and what he didnt see? You weren't there. The salient point is he picked him out. Along with two other people. THREE identifications of the same person. Count them. THREE.

Spent cases from the gun were found 19 days after Hanratty had stayed in the room. Not very convincing as even a doss house gets cleaned.

You're right it was a doss house and as such it wasn't properly cleaned for that long...no occupants you see. And in Re...Derrick land of law and order, any evidence not found after what....day two? must be suspect? HAHA!

The DNA is LCN and wasn't quantified. The FSS just picked out any peaks that matched alleles in the referential profiles available.

The DNA proved Hanratty did it. Defence and Hanratty's family have had to concede that. If the experts couldn't argue against it, don't expect me to accept any tainted argument from the biased keyboard you are typing from!

Noone can state exactly how any DNA was deposited by a DNA test alone. Anyone who believes this is an idiot.

The experts see distributions all the time. This was a distribution which proved sex had taken place. Flat earthers can't and won't accept that. Flat earthers want criminals to rape and murder scot free. Flat earthers believe what they want and you are the king of them. Your choice. Defend a rapist and murderer and sleep well with the conscience that does so. I am only glad that i don't have to.

[babybird67]

You either accept evidence in one case pertaining to another and/or other cases or you don't. Make your mind up Jennifer or be called a hypocrite.

LOL!

Nice try.

I am not personally interested in the other case Norma posted about because it has NO BEARING whatsoever on the DNA results in the Hanratty case.

Witness testimony however does have a bearing and it is perfectly legitimate to comment on how in every case there is conflicting witness testimony and the necessity for evaluation of it.

My name is not Jennifer by the way. It's either Jen or bb, babybird, whatever, but i have never signed my posts Jennifer...just for your information. But you can call me whatever makes you happy...i think i am going to call you Rerrick.

[RonIpstone]

Ron or Ronipstone,
regarding the question of how DNA can disappear I am posting some links for you to study.The LCNDNA tests that were used on the 40 year piece of cloth have now been banned for use in Courts of Appeal throughout many American States.

Hello Norma or Natalie,

Well if the Hanratty defence team can get a suitably qualified expert to say it is a realistic possibility for the rapist's DNA, deposited as semen on the knickers' fragment, should deteriorate over a 40 year period so as to be undetectable, whereas other DNA deposited on the fragment should not so deteriorate, then you may have something. Unfortunately for your argument there is no expert opinion to substantiate it.


Ron

[Natalie Severn]

Ron or Ronipstone,
Thanks for reading the link.
Quite frankly we do not know where that fragment of cloth had been that was kept in conditions that would now be considered unacceptable.
But I agree it would need one of the state of the art LCN DNA experts to give their opinion.
Best
Norma