a6 murder

[simon]

Hi,
With time on my hands yesterday, I watched again 3 TV documentaries about the murder that I have on videotape. The most recent of them, as well as including an interview with V.Storie, makes the point that DNA shows it's absurdly unlikely that anyone other than Hanratty was the killer. DNA, however, doesn't tell us anything about motive. I think there are still questions about Alphon, Dixie France and the man none of us are supposed to name for some reason...but wouldn't it be sensible if we all accepted that the man in the back seat was JH, and take it from there ? Paul Foot's book was written a long time ago now.

[Steve]

Hello Simon

Yes, it’s sensible to accept the Hanratty was the gunman, the DNA evidence proves this conclusively. I do agree that Dixie France had an involvement, but not until after the killing had taken place. Alphon was an innocent bystander and had nothing to do with the crime other than making money from Justice’s pro-Hanratty campaign.

There was no motive to the A6 murder, at least not a pre-planned motive. If there was a motive at all it was either Hanratty enjoying the feeling of power over the couple in the car, or his decision to rape Valerie Storie, though Hanratty probably never believed it to have been rape.

The man with no name you mention was of course William Ewer who Woffinden referred to as The Central Figure for fear of litigation.

Kind regards,
Steve

[larue]

hi Steve

i would agree that it’s sensible to accept the Hanratty was probably the gunman, but i still cannot accept the dna evidence per se. call me stupid if you will but...


dna evidence cannot be argued by the layperson. this means the accused cannot face his accuser. not unless the accused just happens to be an 'expert' dna scientist, and could conduct the tests for himself. in the same way a layperson cannot argue law with a lawyer, or medicine with a doctor, as both those worthies would aks the layperson 'where did you gain your degree?, what's that? you don't have one, then you are not qualified to talk on the subject'. the layperson and anything they had to say would then be summarily dismissed.

the amount of dna extracted from the hanratty's remains was insufficient to perform an analysis. so it was subjected to a process whereby it was "grown" till it was large enough. cloned if you will. reproduced. so the dna tested was only a reproduction of dna not real dna? is that what this means?

we would assume the tests are carried out by a thoroughly trained and experienced technician, we would further assume the tests are carried out in a scrupulously clean clinical laboratory with accreditted clean-room conditions, with all equipment correctly sterilized, not in a grubby little test lab with people sneezing and coughing all over?

what safeguards are there in place to ensure mistakes do not occur with the samples or procedures. can we feel confident that the dna laboratories are run as efficiently as our nhs labs, who regularly manage to **** up tests and send test results to the wrong patients, informing them they have the clap when in reality they have cancer and vice versa???

how can we be sure that the results are 'interpreted' correctly. an interpretation is only a matter of opinion after all, and as we all know, opinions can be, shall we say, influenced by certain considerations.

even the 'experts' acknowledge the possibility of cross contamination, as stated in the appeal transcript, so how can the layperson, or expert for that matter, be confident that the whole procedure from sample collection to final analysis is beyond reproach, and will produce results that are beyond all reasonable doubt? add to this that the insufficient sample dna had been decomposing in the ground for over forty years, and the other samples [hanky, knicker fragment] had never been subject to today's [one would hope] stringent handling and storage techniques? [those famous cardboard boxes]

what guarantee is there? how can the general public be confident that such testing, and the people who carry out the tests are totally infallible, and incorruptable?



i guess i will never be totally convinced either way, unless maybe something new comes up at some point in the future. but then, after all that has passed, is there anybody out there who is interested enough to start all over again. i think not. the official view, which was wanted all the time, will remain. guilty-case closed. now forget it!

[jimarilyn]

hi Steve

i would agree that it’s sensible to accept the Hanratty was probably the gunman, but i still cannot accept the dna evidence per se. call me stupid if you will but...


dna evidence cannot be argued by the layperson. this means the accused cannot face his accuser. not unless the accused just happens to be an 'expert' dna scientist, and could conduct the tests for himself. in the same way a layperson cannot argue law with a lawyer, or medicine with a doctor, as both those worthies would aks the layperson 'where did you gain your degree?, what's that? you don't have one, then you are not qualified to talk on the subject'. the layperson and anything they had to say would then be summarily dismissed.

the amount of dna extracted from the hanratty's remains was insufficient to perform an analysis. so it was subjected to a process whereby it was "grown" till it was large enough. cloned if you will. reproduced. so the dna tested was only a reproduction of dna not real dna? is that what this means?

we would assume the tests are carried out by a thoroughly trained and experienced technician, we would further assume the tests are carried out in a scrupulously clean clinical laboratory with accreditted clean-room conditions, with all equipment correctly sterilized, not in a grubby little test lab with people sneezing and coughing all over?

what safeguards are there in place to ensure mistakes do not occur with the samples or procedures. can we feel confident that the dna laboratories are run as efficiently as our nhs labs, who regularly manage to **** up tests and send test results to the wrong patients, informing them they have the clap when in reality they have cancer and vice versa???

how can we be sure that the results are 'interpreted' correctly. an interpretation is only a matter of opinion after all, and as we all know, opinions can be, shall we say, influenced by certain considerations.

even the 'experts' acknowledge the possibility of cross contamination, as stated in the appeal transcript, so how can the layperson, or expert for that matter, be confident that the whole procedure from sample collection to final analysis is beyond reproach, and will produce results that are beyond all reasonable doubt? add to this that the insufficient sample dna had been decomposing in the ground for over forty years, and the other samples [hanky, knicker fragment] had never been subject to today's [one would hope] stringent handling and storage techniques? [those famous cardboard boxes]

what guarantee is there? how can the general public be confident that such testing, and the people who carry out the tests are totally infallible, and incorruptable?



i guess i will never be totally convinced either way, unless maybe something new comes up at some point in the future. but then, after all that has passed, is there anybody out there who is interested enough to start all over again. i think not. the official view, which was wanted all the time, will remain. guilty-case closed. now forget it!

Hi Larue,

Excellently thought out post. I'm sure you speak on behalf of a large number of people in this country. I don't question or distrust the men in white coats who carry out such DNA testing for Governmental bodies. They are only as good ( or otherwise ) as the 40 year old materials they are provided with. I certainly don't go along with all those people who disregard all the other contrary evidence in the case which supports Hanratty's innocence in favour of DNA testing performed behind closed doors with very questionable exhibits that were locked (?) away for 4 decades. Goodness knows who had access to these exhibits in the meantime and what was capable of being done to these materials to change their original state. I suppose where there's a will............


I have learned one thing from my newspaper (and other) research into this enigmatic case, and that is that the Hanratty's have been treated abominably by successive governments (Labour and Conservative) since 1962. They have been fobbed off time and time again regardless of how worthy and meritorious their painstakingly acquired evidence pointing to their son's innocence proved to be. They knew James inside out and what he was and wasn't capable of. They observed his behaviour and interactions in court, they visited him in prison and they above all people would be able to detect tell-tale signs of lying. I would advise anyone on this site to read and re-read all those letters he wrote from prison. A strong faith in God comes across in those letters and a belief that the real culprit's conscience would not allow an innocent man to hang.

[simon]

It's the suicide of Dixie France that now intrigues me most. The official reason seems to be that he was full of remorse for having invited Hanratty into his home. Can we really swallow that ? If he were so concerned for the welfare of his family, would he really have deprived them of himself ?!

[Steve]

Hi Simon

Dixie's suicide, another mystery of the A6 murder case. He had attempted suicide previously but finally gassed himself in a West London bed & breakfast.

He left several letters and notes which have never been made public because to do so 'would not have been in the public interest.'

I for one would like to know what was in those letters.

Kind regards,
Steve

[Steve]

The France Family Home

The bottom right hand flat was once the France family home.

[jimarilyn]

He left several letters and notes which have never been made public because to do so 'would not have been in the public interest.'

Once again we have puffed up and smug politicians (full of their own importance) insulting the public's intelligence and arrogantly deciding what we ought and ought not to know. They might let us know what was in those suicide letters in a couple of hundred years time.

Excellent point Simon, Charles France so loved his family that he removed himself permanently from their lives and left them in grief for the rest of their lives. No danger of him spilling any beans was there ?

[larue]

hi all

He left several letters and notes which have never been made public because to do so 'would not have been in the public interest.'

yeah, right. the public interest. [i wonder who decides what the public interest is???] well this public is very interested, and can think of almost* no reason why this information should be suppressed. likewise the remaining evidence that was denied to Michael Hanratty when he aksed for it.

it's things like this that that count more with me than all the lab technicians and white coats and all the other crud put together. facts aboot this case were suppressed at the time and still are, almost half a century later. someone somewhere certainly has something to hide. now what could it be???


*i say almost, because i can envision that famous person 'spokeman said' making an announcement to the effect that certain documents were being witheld as they contain information that could prove distressing or embarrasing to surviving people who were involved with the case. or somesuch.

anyone else have any thoughts on this?

[Steve]

Hi Larue

You make a good point, the only valid reason for withholding the France writings would have been if releasing them would cause a problem for family members, etc.

KR
Steve

[larue]

Excellently thought out post.

thank you

I'm sure you speak on behalf of a large number of people in this country.

er... no. i only speak for myself. though i do suspect others may also have a distrust of 'the powers that be' or whatever you may want to call them

I have learned one thing from my newspaper (and other) research into this enigmatic case, and that is that the Hanratty's have been treated abominably by successive governments (Labour and Conservative) since 1962.

not suprising. it seems that governments are remarkably good at being insensitive and heartless. look at the 'Shot At Dawn' campaign for example.

'government exists to serve the people. people do not exist to serve the government' should be painted on all public buildings, banknotes etc, and carved in 20foot high letters on the houses of parliament.

[larue]

Hi Larue

You make a good point, the only valid reason for withholding the France writings would have been if releasing them would cause a problem for family members, etc.

KR
Steve

or would contradict previously given testimony, maybe???

[Steve]

Once again we have puffed up and smug politicians (full of their own importance) insulting the public's intelligence and arrogantly deciding what we ought and ought not to know.

It was the Ealing Coroner who made that decision - there was not even one puffed up smug politician in sight at the time.

[Steve]

or would contradict previously given testimony, maybe???

Fair to say that The Coroner's decision met with plenty of disapproval from newspapers and other interested people including Michael Hanratty.

[larue]

It was the Ealing Coroner who made that decision

that begs the question, was it a unilateral decision on his part, made for whatever reason?, or was he being 'influenced' by others with a vested interest in the case? namely, a certain policeman or men, to pick an example entirely at random.


oh bum. it's monday morning. right lads, back on your heads.