a6 murder

[Derrick]

Why are you so hung up on what Swanwick thought? It doesn't matter where he was holed up before or after the crime, it only matters if he can prove he was elsewhere at the time - which a signature in a guestbook, even under the "Ryan" alias, would do.

We know he was at the Frances on the Monday, and sending a telegram from Liverpool on Thursday, and in the back of a Moggie in-between!

Hi Victor

The judge Mr Gorman made the jury well aware that a lack of alibi was no indication of guilt.

You seem to be hung up on the opposite as being true.

Derrick

[Derrick]

Very briefly, because all this has been posted before, this is what Hanratty told his defence about his claimed visit to Rhyl:

1] He arrived by bus in the evening. (The only bus he could have got from Liverpool arrived at Rhyl at 8.19pm and at least one of the Rhyl "witnesses" claimed to have seen him or someone resembling him before this time).

2] He knew Terry Evans as "John" and said he tried to contact him to fence some stuff for him. He didn't go to the fairground because he'd walked out of a job there during his previous (genuine) visit to Rhyl. He didn't say if he had been to Evans' house, but he did say that he considered the shoes he'd taken as a gift, implying that there was no reason he couldn't have gone to Evans' house.

3] When he couldn't find Evans he began to search for a room. (This in itself weakens a lot of the evidence of the "witnesses" because it nullifies the times some of them said they saw Hanratty around Kinmell Street area).

4] The next day he went to Dixie's cafe he said he knew Evans used, but he wasn't there and no-one he asked knew where he was. (So why on that day didn't he go to Evans house or the fairgorund?) He also said he had a shave at a barber's shop (his defence checked on barber's in Rhyl, none of them could recall seeing anyone like Hanratty, which his supposedly highly noticeable hair).

5] He spent time in amusement arcades and in Woolworth's on Wednesday afternoon, then said that in the evening he went to the fairground but couldn't find Evans. (If anyone at the fairground saw him, they didn't contact his defence [as far as I'm aware]). In the evening he said he went back to Dixie's cafe then spent a second night at Ingledene.

6] On Thursday morning he went back to Liverpool.

The above is not speculation, it's the bare bones of what he told his defence about his visit to Rhyl. My comments are in brackets.

Graham

Hi Graham

Point 3 from your post is very bare bones indeed.

Hanratty said he asked several people for digs, before coming upon Mrs Jones lodgings.

This has been corroborated fully by the owners of guest houses in the Kinmel Street area, including describing the mans appearance, especially his hair condition. The mention of the man's hair state being similar by more than one person and it being right alone convinces me that it was Hanratty. The other witnesses just add more weight to that opinion.

Timing, some 6 months after the event are always going to be a bit awry. But none are more than an hour out. Mrs Walker gave an additonal statement that said her encounter was at lighting up time as the sun set, around 8:30 to 8:45.

It would also have been very unlikely for Hanratty to have made up the trip to Liverpool on the Tuesday and ask for Carlton or Tarleton Road and have that corroborated by Mrs Dinwoodie. This part of his alibi never changed and the prosecution couldn't counter it in a logical fashion without resorting to fantasy.

Considering that none of the prosecution identification witnesses mentioned the state of the mans hair being similar to the state that Hanratty's was in at the time convinces me that Hanratty was anywhere other than in Rhyl on the night of the 22nd.

Also little point is made of the fact that no one sees Hanratty, with his distinctive hair, supposedly travelling to Liverpool on the Thursday to set up what would be a useless alibi!

Your point 4 is just plain wrong as a Rhyl barber called Gerald Murray seems to remember Hanratty as being a customer. Mr Murray (with Messrs Dutton and Larman) wasn't interviewed by Douglas Nimmo in his oh so thorough Rhyl alibi investigation. Whitewash.

An interesting development in the world of DNA interpretation can be found here:

http://www.brightonwired.co.uk/news.php/126223-Port-Talbot-mans-daughter-rape-conviction-quashed

Derrick

[babybird67]

Mr Murray (with Messrs Dutton and Larman) wasn't interviewed by Douglas Nimmo in his oh so thorough Rhyl alibi investigation. Whitewash.


Derrick

Didn't the Defence team send someone to investigate the Rhyl alibi?

[Graham]

Derrick,

what I posted are not my points; they are what Hanratty told his defence regarding his claim to be in Rhyl on the night in question. You can read in Woffinden, paperback edition, Pages 127 - 8. If you don't believe it, then take it up with Woffinden, not me.

You give the impression that anyone speaking up for Hanratty, however remotely, is to be fully believed, whereas anyone else is a damn liar.

Graham

[Victor]

The judge Mr Gorman made the jury well aware that a lack of alibi was no indication of guilt.

You seem to be hung up on the opposite as being true.

Hi Derrick,

A lack of alibi is not an indication of guilt, it's the lack of indication of innocence! It's all the other evidence that indicates guilt, but this recent discussion has centred on Rhyl which is just another lie spun by Hanratty.

KR,
Vic

[Graham]

In any trial, the accused can come up with any alibi he fancies, but on the strict understanding that it is the duty of the prosecution to try and disprove it. It seems very reasonable to assume that in Hanratty's case the jury believed that the prosecution did indeed prove that the Rhyl "alibi" was so much nonsense.

Mr Justice Gorman, in his summing-up, said that Swanwick referred to the Liverpool Alibi as possibly being 'bought', something not unknown amongst rogues. However, Gorman then said that if the Liverpool Alibi, or more specifically Hanratty's claim that he was in a sweet-shop asking directions, really was 'bought', then how did he know that someone (according to Mrs Dinwoody) really did call in and ask for directions to somewhere, even though there was confusion as to precisely what day this happened? In other words, the learned judge was telling the jury that he thought the Liverpool Alibi had some basis. This reinforces my long-held opinion that Hanratty should've stuck to his Liverpool Alibi, and not gone off on a flight of fancy about Rhyl, which really is palpable nonsense, which not even his defence team believed. He was, as ever, the architect of his own downfall.

Graham

Graham

[Victor]

Hi Derrick,

Hanratty said he asked several people for digs, before coming upon Mrs Jones lodgings.

Then why do none of the Rhyl witnesses mention his luggage? If he asked several people before coming upon Ingledene then why did Larman point him (without luggage) there.

The mention of the man's hair state being similar by more than one person and it being right alone convinces me that it was Hanratty.

How is "streaky" or "tacky", "right" for Hanratty's hair?

But none are more than an hour out. Mrs Walker gave an additonal statement that said her encounter was at lighting up time as the sun set, around 8:30 to 8:45.

How does that timing work? Arrival in Rhyl 8:19pm. Try to find Evans. Somehow get rid of luggage. Get to Mrs Walker by 8:30-8:45pm.

Between 11 and 26 minutes isn't that long to do all that.

Considering that none of the prosecution identification witnesses mentioned the state of the mans hair being similar to the state that Hanratty's was in at the time convinces me that Hanratty was anywhere other than in Rhyl on the night of the 22nd.

I'm convinced he wasn't in Rhyl too!

An interesting development in the world of DNA interpretation can be found here:
http://www.brightonwired.co.uk/news....iction-quashed

I don't see how that is relevent, a man's DNA could easily get into his daughter's room of the family home.

KR,
Vic.

[Graham]

Considering that none of the prosecution identification witnesses mentioned the state of the mans hair being similar to the state that Hanratty's was in at the time convinces me that Hanratty was anywhere other than in Rhyl on the night of the 22nd.

Congratulations, Derrick! I knew you'd see the light sooner or later!

Graham

[Derrick]

Congratulations, Derrick! I knew you'd see the light sooner or later!

Graham

oops, slight grammar error there.
Relax, I haven't seen the light at all.

[Derrick]

I don't see how that is relevent, a man's DNA could easily get into his daughter's room of the family home.

He spent five years in jail because of it though!!!!

[Victor]

He spent five years in jail because of it though!!!!

So? The Forensic results were overstated - it happens. It's wrong but it happens, that's why the defence have experts too, to highlight those issues. However, there's an obvious, logical explanation for the determined results in this case - that's not the same with Hanratty where the results clearly show Hanratty left his semen on Valerie's underwear when he raped her.

KR,
Vic.

[Limehouse]

So? The Forensic results were overstated - it happens. It's wrong but it happens, that's why the defence have experts too, to highlight those issues. However, there's an obvious, logical explanation for the determined results in this case - that's not the same with Hanratty where the results clearly show Hanratty left his semen on Valerie's underwear when he raped her.

KR,
Vic.

So ? So ? I can hardly believe your attitude. This man spent five in years in prison for the rape of HIS DAUGHTER. Those charges probably destroyed a family and caused untold trauma to both daughter and father as well as other members of the family.
It is reasonable to assume that the DNA tests were carried out on reasonably fresh samples that had been protected from contamination after collection from the crime scene. As the father probably lived in close proximity to the daughter cross contamination was a high risk. Therefore scientists carrying out tests for semen should have been very sure about what they were isolating.
Such a case – coming so long after the Hanratty DNA was apparently identified – highlights the damaging and careless conclusions that are drawn from such tests.
I extracted the points I think are most telling:

"The DNA found on the front of the shorts was a weak partial profile," he said. "Statistical analysis of such weak partial profiles has no relevance.

"The DNA did not necessarily originate from semen, but may have originated from skin, sweat or even secondary transfer form such sources."

He concluded: "The conviction is unsafe...The conclusions which the Crown invited the jury to draw form the scientific evidence were overstated and of no evidential value."

[Derrick]

So? The Forensic results were overstated - it happens. It's wrong but it happens, that's why the defence have experts too, to highlight those issues. However, there's an obvious, logical explanation for the determined results in this case - that's not the same with Hanratty where the results clearly show Hanratty left his semen on Valerie's underwear when he raped her.

The original results in the "Mr E" case showed that it was semen. This was shown to be unreliable and could have originated from any cell type.

Perhaps you would like to demonstrate exactly, from the results, how Hanratty's semen was found on Valerie's underwear and how his profile was identified and made distinct from VS's and MG's?

Derrick

[Derrick]

...

JULIE

SPOT ON.

Derrick

[babybird67]

Perhaps you would like to demonstrate exactly, from the results, how Hanratty's semen was found on Valerie's underwear and how his profile was identified and made distinct from VS's and MG's?

Derrick

Why does Vic have to demonstrate that when the experts conducting the tests already have?