a6 murder

[RonIpstone]

My apologies for this! I have a new computer ...

Congratulations. Does this one have a key for the apostrophe?

[babybird67]

The word ‘fiasco’ was introduced by Vic so you could direct your comments to him.

Perhaps if you had quoted and attributed to Vic i would have. However you adopted it, and as his later post makes clear, he used it in a different context, so perhaps you could explain why mistakes in a suspect description and the action to correct them on the part of the Police in an attempt to apprehend a murderer and rapist qualifies as being described as a 'fiasco', as that is the word you chose to use.

As my post makes clear, there would be no dispute about eye colour had the police got things right at the very start.

As has been pointed out ad nauseum, their witness was fighting for her life in intensive care. The doctors did not expect her to survive. They obtained a description in a hurry. There is no evidence that Ms Storie ever used the phrase 'brown' in her description of her attackers eyes. That the Police confused this in a hurried attempt to get enough information out there to catch the despicable man who had killer Gregsten and raped and crippled Storie is not surprising...in fact i am more surprised there weren't more inconsistencies. DO you get everything right in your job ALL the time? I know i certainly don't but we can all sit in ivory towers and expect everyone else to be perfect.

They issued a description introducing brown eyes. They were, it seems, ignoring Valerie’s description of ‘blue eyes’.

Ignoring? Huh? You really think Police deliberately ignore witness statements? It was obviously an error on their part which they corrected immediately it was brought to their attention, hence the revised suspect description they issued. Can you give a motive for them ignoring this vital informtion one minute and then suddenly changing their mind and revising it and including it?

No one is blaming Valerie for that.

People on this thread have. And have accused her of much worse.

I did not relegate the victims of the crime in my statement at all. Taken in context, my statement was a response to the announcement that Hanratty’s family plan to launch a fresh appeal in 2011. My statement would naturally, therefore, mention Hanratty’s family first. My sympathies have consistently been towards all victims of this crime.

You may say so, but it doesnt appear that way to me. Otherwise you would not perpetuate the idea that Hanratty was innocent, which must cause immense distress to the surviving victims and families affected by what he did to them. I know you won't and don't like what I say, but I'm sorry...i am on the side of the victims in this crime....not the perpetrator.

[babybird67]

Babybird,
It appears to me that all you feel you have to do on here is present the flawed evidence from the original trial as being gospel

Um no Natalie. Unlike you i do not appear to be stuck in the 60s with the original trial. I have stated that there were flaws in the original trial, however the Jury heard all the evidence and they chose to convict and that was their prerogative and history has shown their verdict was correct. I have read the Appeal verdict and evidence and that also forms a part of my knowledge and understanding of the case. Whatever the flaws in the original trial, the evidence is overwhelming now that Hanratty was guilty. It's pointless going on and on about flaws in the original trial. That trial is over. Gone. Finished. Hanratty was convicted. Evidence from DNA shows that was correct whatever the flaws in the original trial. Case closed. If only some minds weren't so closed to facts and reason and evidence, maybe the case could be closed and the poor victim find some closure.

[Natalie Severn]

Um no Natalie. Unlike you i do not appear to be stuck in the 60s with the original trial. I have stated that there were flaws in the original trial, however the Jury heard all the evidence and they chose to convict and that was their prerogative and history has shown their verdict was correct. I have read the Appeal verdict and evidence and that also forms a part of my knowledge and understanding of the case. Whatever the flaws in the original trial, the evidence is overwhelming now that Hanratty was guilty. It's pointless going on and on about flaws in the original trial. That trial is over. Gone. Finished. Hanratty was convicted. Evidence from DNA shows that was correct whatever the flaws in the original trial. Case closed. If only some minds weren't so closed to facts and reason and evidence, maybe the case could be closed and the poor victim find some closure.

But Jen,by refusing to make a careful study of the original data ,it becomes all too easy to accept the various evasions embedded in the texts and expositions that followed from the likes of Hawser-- as well as from the successive home secretaries.They are all unbelievably slippery in their "selectiveness".
There was not an ounce of evidence that irrefutably pointed to Hanratty-not an ounce. Nudds [or France ] could easily have planted those cartridge cases as part of a "swiss cottage deal". I trust none of them.
Moreover ,the Macmillan government in 1961 were far too up to their necks in scandal -about to become massively unstuck in the scandal of the century with heads rolling all over the place from the prime minister Macmillan himself for appointing Profumo as his Minister of War when he slept with prostitutes like Christine Keeler who either did or could have given away state secrets to Russian spies, to others who were given to staying up all night at parties,apparently performing no end of party tricks in the nude etc .All of them were to be up before the beak in early 1962 around the time Hanratty was being hanged. Yes,the Profumo scandal exposed ministers cavorting with prostitutes who in their turn were either cavorting with Russian spies or cavorting with Soho gangsters as did Christine Keeler.[I will say this though-those 1961 politicians at least had the decency to resign -today they stay put however much tax payers money they have stolen from us on their "expenses "etc --- both sides of the house equally guilty ---but resign?---not likely-not unless forced.Ordinary people would have been locked up in prison and branded as thieves no less .So all this was going on when Hanratty was being sentenced to death and later hanged.Did the Home Secretary have his eye on the ball therefore when clemency was sought or a reprieve for Hanratty? I don"t believe so.Given the lack of evidence submitted, it was in fact quite an extraordinary outcome by any standard-even for February 1962.

[RonIpstone]

Congratulations. Does this one have a key for the apostrophe?

Obviously not.

[Natalie Severn]

Hi Vic,
QUOTE]Nudds evidence is the lynchpin of the Alphon case! His contribution to the Hanratty evidence is corroborated by the Vienna guest book.[/QUOTE]
Nudds! The man was totally untrustworthy and you very well know it.[Nudds said whatever the police wanted him to say and it suited them].

France could have many reasons to commit suicide including the obvious - he let his family and specifically his daughter associate with a murderer and rapist.

I don't think this is "obvious" at all. France was sacked having been a bouncer at a Soho Night club .He was old enough to be Hanratty"s father [45]-older than his mum was.He had worked amongst seasoned gangsters in Soho for years and years and had known Hanratty when he was just a young teenager---a "child" according to today"s definitions since was was under 18 when they first met.I often wonder if he was a really bad influence on the young and impressionable James Hanratty.

[Limehouse]

Perhaps if you had quoted and attributed to Vic i would have. However you adopted it, and as his later post makes clear, he used it in a different context, so perhaps you could explain why mistakes in a suspect description and the action to correct them on the part of the Police in an attempt to apprehend a murderer and rapist qualifies as being described as a 'fiasco', as that is the word you chose to use.



As has been pointed out ad nauseum, their witness was fighting for her life in intensive care. The doctors did not expect her to survive. They obtained a description in a hurry. There is no evidence that Ms Storie ever used the phrase 'brown' in her description of her attackers eyes. That the Police confused this in a hurried attempt to get enough information out there to catch the despicable man who had killer Gregsten and raped and crippled Storie is not surprising...in fact i am more surprised there weren't more inconsistencies. DO you get everything right in your job ALL the time? I know i certainly don't but we can all sit in ivory towers and expect everyone else to be perfect.




Ignoring? Huh? You really think Police deliberately ignore witness statements? It was obviously an error on their part which they corrected immediately it was brought to their attention, hence the revised suspect description they issued. Can you give a motive for them ignoring this vital informtion one minute and then suddenly changing their mind and revising it and including it?



People on this thread have. And have accused her of much worse.



You may say so, but it doesnt appear that way to me. Otherwise you would not perpetuate the idea that Hanratty was innocent, which must cause immense distress to the surviving victims and families affected by what he did to them. I know you won't and don't like what I say, but I'm sorry...i am on the side of the victims in this crime....not the perpetrator.

Sigh - you have completely misunderstood the points I was making and the reason I was making them and any further debate with you is pointless.

Whenever those who doubt Hanratty's guilt present their views they are drowned out by those who think they have sole claim on the moral ground concerning this case. Our moral integrity is constantly challenged and we are bombarded with self-righteousness - arrogance and ridicule.

If you think this debate is prolonging the distress for the victims then stop contributing.

[Limehouse]

Hi Vic,
QUOTE]Nudds evidence is the lynchpin of the Alphon case! His contribution to the Hanratty evidence is corroborated by the Vienna guest book.

Nudds! The man was totally untrustworthy and you very well know it.[Nudds said whatever the police wanted him to say and it suited them].



I don't think this is "obvious" at all. France was sacked having been a bouncer at a Soho Night club .He was old enough to be Hanratty"s father [45]-older than his mum was.He had worked amongst seasoned gangsters in Soho for years and years and had known Hanratty when he was just a young teenager---a "child" according to today"s definitions since was was under 18 when they first met.I often wonder if he was a really bad influence on the young and impressionable James Hanratty.[/QUOTE]


Quite so Norma. France was a criminal long before Hanratty met him and Hanratty could not have been the only criminal France introduced to his family.

[Black Rabbit]

Let's not forget, should any subsequent appeal be successful, James Hanratty becomes a victim of this crime too, as do his immediate family members etc.

[Natalie Severn]

Quite so Norma. France was a criminal long before Hanratty met him and Hanratty could not have been the only criminal France introduced to his family.

Exactly Julie.The thing is though that Hanratty met him when he was a 17 year old.If France, twenty odd years older and wiser,had encouraged him to housebreak by telling him he would act as his fence he would have been acting in a Fagin like role at the very least.Both Nudds and Dixie France were much older men than Hanratty and much more seasoned in the iniquities of Soho.
Norma

[Natalie Severn]

Hi Black Rabbit,absolutely true!

[Victor]

Nudds evidence is the lynchpin of the Alphon case! His contribution to the Hanratty evidence is corroborated by the Vienna guest book.

Nudds! The man was totally untrustworthy and you very well know it.[Nudds said whatever the police wanted him to say and it suited them].

Hi Norma and Julie,

Yes exactly, he's totally unreliable and therefore anyone who relies on his evidence to implicate Alphon is on very dodgy ground. However, for those who think Hanratty is guilty then we don't have to rely on Nudds evidence at all.

France could have many reasons to commit suicide including the obvious - he let his family and specifically his daughter associate with a murderer and rapist.

I don't think this is "obvious" at all.

What's not obvious? He had previously introduced a man into his family home, and that man had just been convicted of rape and murder. That's quite straightforward and obvious to me. France kept his family very well protected from criminal activity, leading a sort of double-life.

I often wonder if he was a really bad influence on the young and impressionable James Hanratty.

James Hanratty had been a burgular for years too - in and out of prison time and time again.

France was a criminal long before Hanratty met him and Hanratty could not have been the only criminal France introduced to his family.

Please can you explain how you come to that bizarre conclusion? France kept his family as insulated from criminal activity as possible so I would say Hanratty was the first one he brought into the family home and that one turns out to be a murderer and rapist, no wonder France felt so utterly betrayed and duped and worthless.

KR,
Vic.

[Natalie Severn]

What's not obvious? He had previously introduced a man into his family home, and that man had just been convicted of rape and murder. That's quite straightforward and obvious to me. France kept his family very well protected from criminal activity, leading a sort of double-life.

Helped by evidence France supplied about his knowledge of where Hanratty said he hid his rubbish from the burglaries---burglaries France pimped off by using Hanratty"s "non-rubbish" to sell on the antiques shops! Besides-nobody knows who France was "in with" in the criminal underworld---what we know for certain is that he " dealt with " and worked for some of them. He also appears to have done some sort of business with his neighbour in Swiss Cottage, the part time antiques dealer ,William Ewer,-why else did he go into William Ewer"s shop to say how sorry he was about what had happened to his brother-in -law in the Morris Minor?

The point I was making was that at the time Hanratty first met France he was too young to even be legally bought a drink! He was only 17, which, today, is termed a child.France was already a man of the world with 3 children ,the oldest of which was already ten years old.He was therefore by the strict standards of the law corrupting a minor by encouraging Hanratty as a petty crook and follow this up by buying his stolen goods from him.

[Limehouse]

Hi Norma and Julie,

What's not obvious? He had previously introduced a man into his family
Please can you explain how you come to that bizarre conclusion? France kept his family as insulated from criminal activity as possible so I would say Hanratty was the first one he brought into the family home and that one turns out to be a murderer and rapist, no wonder France felt so utterly betrayed and duped and worthless.

KR,
Vic.

Oh classic! Vic- you yourself have argued you believe Hanratty stole the gun for the crime from France's airing cupboard! Is this an example of how you think France protected his family from criminal activity?

What do you thinkl France's family were doing when he was in prison? Do you think they thought he was enjoying the 'bracing air' in Skegness?

[Natalie Severn]

re the recognition of colour in artificial light

Point of information here over the question of the colour of the masked gunman"s eyes
Alphon"s eyes were hazel-ie light brown
Hanratty"s eyes were blue

It is a scientific fact that the artificial light of headlights would have reduced eye colour in both cases ie in the case of both Alphon and Hanratty.
I paint all the time and every artist knows that an accurate colour cannot be either discerned or obtained at night time by artificial light unless a simulation bulb is used-ordinary artificial light deaden"s or bleaches colour as it would with both blue and hazel eyes rendering both the same "light grey".

A " daylight simulation bulb" is made of a special blue tinted glass which produces a light quality that is almost identical to natural light.

Therefore, Valerie"s impression of the gunman having had "blue eyes" may not be accurate as both blue and hazel [light brown] would have appeared to have been the same "light" or "pale" deadened colour/shade of " light grey" in the brief glimpse she had had of them.
Norma
ps I have never and would never accuse Valerie of lying nor is it what I think.I believe Valerie suffered a horrific ordeal and was a heroine to have emerged from it with such immense courage and stoicism.Nx