a6 murder

[JP56]

alphon...

Hullo all

Has Peter Alphon's DNA ever been sampled / examined / tested (whatever the word is...)?

Secondly (& I KNOW I should have asked this before...) are there a couple of books on this crime that can be recommended? Obviously, having read 75% of the posts, I see several books have been referenced many times... what I'm looking for is a recommendation on a book that *dispassionately* sets out to solve the mystery, rather than one 'with an agenda' for/against JH...

Thirdly (finally...) any info on an earlier question - JH & Alphon... left ot right handed?

Many thanks
JP56

[Victor]

Mmmm, I don’t agree with ‘minimised’. Each piece of data has value, not then necessarily minimised by other data, but to be weighed in the mix, and explored as to the contribution it makes to unravelling the puzzle of this case…

Hi JP,

But the data came from one source in a stream of other bits - 'call me Jim' - childhood abuse - living rough - PD - &tc, and if some of them are lies then how do you pick and chose which ones you are going to believe?

QUOTE “would you be able to rationally consider these things when there's a gun pointed at you?”

Perhaps not during the early stages, but over 5-6 hours, with a clearly less than bright abductor, I would expect two intelligent people to exploit obvious opportunities. You suggest that the two victims weren’t able to think clearly to save themselves but you are suggesting that the ability to rationalise additional potential victims if the alarm was raised didn’t desert them, if I read your comment right…

OK, at what point do you think you can overpower a gunman? Or is that exactly what Gregsten did try and paid for with his life?

My suggestion was that there would probably be lots of thoughts running through the victim's minds - and self-preservation would be one of the most significant, and if that means compliance and not rocking the boat then that's what would have happened - I don't see it as contradictory to comply with an armed assailant, and not put extra people at risk.

KR,
Vic.

[Victor]

Has Peter Alphon's DNA ever been sampled / examined / tested (whatever the word is...)?

Hi JP,

Yes, his DNA was used as a comparison for the hanky and knicker fragments and was found to not match - no idea where they got it from though.

KR,
Vic.

[Victor]

I would be willing to enter into discourse concerning possible alternatives to the official version of events and I know one or two others would too - but be prepared for an ugly battle!

Come on Julie, the insults come from both directions, but the obvious first question is - What is the motive for Valerie to lie? It just makes no sense. I have no problems considering the possibility that she might be mistaken about certain things, or hesitant, or confused, but categorically any accusations that she lied and perjured herself are completely unfounded and unwarranted and hypocritical.

KR,
Vic.

[JP56]

right...

As it stands, I agree ... I don't think that VS lied. She had no reason to based on what we know. I just struggle to comprehend the events of that night as reported. Hence an exploration of alternative scenarios.

[JP56]

...so...

...so, as a way of moving the debate on, what are the possible events that are supported by the evidence we have for the night of the murder?

[Natalie Severn]

Hi JP56,
Someone said earlier to me the headline of that article which stated, "She saw him at the Cleaners" ought perhaps to be reworded to ,"She took him to the cleaners"---someone certainly did!.
The day Janet Gregsten "identified" Hanratty as her husband murderer, having seen him entering Burtols cleaners in the arcade -a few yards only from William Ewer"s Antiques -cum- Umbrella-cum -all sorts shop",Valerie Storie was moved from Bedford Hospital to Guy"s Hospital and on that same day changed her description of the murder"s eyes.

That day was 31st August 1961.

Lets try to understand this one.

[Black Rabbit]

Hi JP56,
Someone said earlier to me the headline of that article which stated, "She saw him at the Cleaners" ought perhaps to be reworded to ,"She took him to the cleaners"---someone certainly did!.
The day Janet Gregsten "identified" Hanratty as her husband murderer, having seen him entering Burtols cleaners in the arcade -a few yards only from William Ewer"s Antiques -cum- Umbrella-cum -all sorts shop",Valerie Storie was moved from Bedford Hospital to Guy"s Hospital and on that same day changed her description of the murder"s eyes.

That day was 31st August 1961.

Lets try to understand this one.

Good call

[Natalie Severn]

a festering heap of bovine faeces!

KR,
Vic.

Yes.......Ha! Ha! Ha!-----you must be referring to the "LCN" DNA tests, Vic, riddled as they were with contaminants ----- what a whiff!

[Natalie Severn]

Good call

Thanks Black Rabbit. It certainly raises a number of questions.
Cheers,
Norma

[Victor]

Yes.......Ha! Ha! Ha!-----you must be referring to the "LCN" DNA tests, Vic, riddled as they were with contaminants ----- what a whiff!

Hi Norma,

Have you been drinking? That makes no sense whatsoever, Woffinden and Michael Hanratty were clamouring for the DNA tests, and only objected when they didn't say what they wanted to hear. There were no contaminants on the samples otherwise they would appear in the results and they didn't!

Oh and stop blatantly lying - Valerie never changed her description of her rapists eyes - even Woffinden accepts that! FFS

KR,
Vic

[Stephen Thomas]

New Appeal

Article in my local paper by Tom Foot (Paul's son).

http://www.camdennewjournal.com/reviews/features/2011/jan/feature-james-hanratty-%E2%80%93-campaign-clear-his-name-continues

[jason_c]

Article in my local paper by Tom Foot (Paul's son).

http://www.camdennewjournal.com/revi...name-continues

I believe more than ever the campaign to clear Hanratty is now a campaign to "clear" Paul Foot.

[Limehouse]

Hi Norma,

Oh and stop blatantly lying - Valerie never changed her description of her rapists eyes - even Woffinden accepts that! FFS

KR,
Vic

In order to be lying - a person has to have the intention of deceiving and that is clearly not the case. 'Brown eyes' was a description circulated by the police early on in the investigation and this persisted right up to the indentity parade in which Alphon took part. How can you blame doubters of Hanratty's guilt for challenging these important points? If Valerie was so insistant that her attacker had blue eyes right from the start of the investigation - why did she pick someone without blue eyes in the first line-up?

[Victor]

In order to be lying - a person has to have the intention of deceiving and that is clearly not the case.

Hi Julie,

I don't agree, Norma has repeated the assertion that Valerie changed her description of her attacker, and that is just not true. I can therefore only conclude that her intention is to deliberately deceive in order to hype up or sex up the case for a miscarriage of justice.

'Brown eyes' was a description circulated by the police early on in the investigation and this persisted right up to the indentity parade in which Alphon took part.

The police did issue a description that included 'brown eyes' and this was amended to 'blue' but there is no conclusive evidence that this change was Valerie changing her description. Most people now conclude that the police made a mistake and issued an inaccurate description, which was later corrected.

How can you blame doubters of Hanratty's guilt for challenging these important points?

I don't blame people for challenging important points, but I do blame people for repeating misinformation.

If Valerie was so insistant that her attacker had blue eyes right from the start of the investigation - why did she pick someone without blue eyes in the first line-up?

She didn't - where is your evidence for this?

KR,
Vic.