a6 murder

[Christine]

If it was contamination from the hankie though, the panties should have shown Valerie, Hanratty, and whomever raped Valerie. You can come up with scenarios, such as the panties had no usable DNA, but they had been in contact with something of Valerie's that did have her DNA, and the hankie. These are all pretty unlikely, though. It's not like the hankie was kept in a cool dry place and the panties were allowed to bake in the sun for 40 years.

[Steve]

Hello ansonman

I do not discount the DNA evidence, I think it provides final proof that Hanratty was the A6 gunman.

You say there is not a shred of evidence. What about Valerie’s total certainty that Hanratty was the gunman? Usually a surviving witness identifying the guilty party provides conclusive proof. When the court convicted Hanratty they will have taken this into account. They will also have taken into account his lack of an alibi, the fact that he went in the morning to Paddington Station.

Personally I prefer to keep an open mind, I do believe Hanratty was guilty, but I am quite prepared to change my view should new evidence ever emerge to exonerate Hanratty, unlikely though this is.

Kind regards,
Steve

[Steve]

Hi Limehouse and Christine

I could we wrong but I got the impression the scientists found only one DNA profile on the handkerchief.

KR
Steve

[Christine]

Hi Steve.

Yes, this scenario would have to have something moving from the hankie to the panties without anything with usable DNA moving the other direction. It's just another "possible but unlikely."

It's also possible but unlikely that Alphon or the real killer is one of the one in 2.5 million that match Hanratty's DNA. I've seen different really large numbers thrown around, and some people have questioned those kind of numbers anyhow. But if it were one in 2.5 million that would still leave a few thousand possible matches, and these would not be random people. They'd be distant relatives of Hanratty--disproportionately people he'd have been likely to run into and interact with.

More possible but unlikely.

[Joseph]

Good Afternoon everybody,Hanratty is 100 per cent innocent. Forget the rigged DNA, Hanratty was asleep at No.19 Ingledene, Rhyl when the lunatic was doing his dreadful work on Mike Gregston and Miss Storie. However hard one may try one cannot be in TWO places simultaneously. The TRUTH will emerge one day.Peace to you all,Joseph

[Steve]

Hello Joseph

How do you know with such total certainty that Hanratty was in Rhyl on the night of the murder? I would be interested to know.

Thanks,
Steve

[ansonman]

Valerie's total certainty, possibly?

Hello ansonman

I do not discount the DNA evidence, I think it provides final proof that Hanratty was the A6 gunman.

You say there is not a shred of evidence. What about Valerie’s total certainty that Hanratty was the gunman? Usually a surviving witness identifying the guilty party provides conclusive proof. When the court convicted Hanratty they will have taken this into account. They will also have taken into account his lack of an alibi, the fact that he went in the morning to Paddington Station.

Personally I prefer to keep an open mind, I do believe Hanratty was guilty, but I am quite prepared to change my view should new evidence ever emerge to exonerate Hanratty, unlikely though this is.

Kind regards,
Steve

Hi Steve,

Valerie Storie was inconsistent in her description of the gunman as having icy blue eyes. Prior to the trial she said that her opportunity to see the gunman had been when she was in the back of the car whereas at trial she said that her view was when she was still in the front seat of the car. When interviewed after the attack she had said that her memory of the man was "fading" and the man she identified on the first parade (on which Peter Alphon appeared) had dark eyes.

She may have been certain that Hanratty was the murderer but this certainty was undermined by her inconsistencies before and during the trial.

Regards,

Ansonman

[Steve]

Hello Ansonman

I think Valerie was quite consistent with her description and that any inconsistencies were due more to communication errors than Valerie changing her mind. Given that she was grievously wounded and near to death’s door when she gave her first descriptions it is not surprising that a detailed description took some time to come together.

Most of us posting here agree that there are only two possibles for the A6 gunman; Hanratty and Alphon. OK, there is a chance that a third party was never discovered, but I for one believe this to be a chance so remote as to be safely discounted. Alphon could not have been the murderer, that leaves only Hanratty.

Kind regards,
Steve

[Limehouse]

Not for the first time Tony makes some excellent points.
I have been convinced of Hanratty's innocence for longer than I can remember and had misgivings about the DNA results as soon as they were announced.

Several earlier postings have shown that DNA results are not foolproof. If one accepts that in Hanratty's case the the DNA results are not foolproof then the results should be dismissed out of hand. Supporters of Hanratty's guilt cannot have it both ways. Either the DNA analysis is absolutely foolproof or it is not. If it is not we can dismiss it. Dismissing the DNA this takes us right back to where we were before Hanratty's remains were exhumed.

One thing which is certain is that whoever murdered Gregson and raped and attempted to murder Storie was a Grade A nutter. His behaviour on the night in question, from the minute he came upon the car to when he left Storie for dead, confirms he was a madman. I don't think many would argue with that.

For me, this raises the question, 'was, or is there any evidence to show that Hanratty was a Grade A nutter?'. I have read most of the books on the case and do not recall any reference to his having demonstrated the behaviour of a madman at any point in his short life. Hanratty may not have been at the head of the line when they handed out IQ's but that does't make him a madman. And if he wasn't a madman, he wasn't the murderer.

Ansonman

Hi Ansoman,

I sympathise with your views, I really do, but, as I've pointed out before, what do we really know about Hanratty? Most of the books written on the case have painted Hanratty as a rather wayward but basically decent young man.

This information must surely have come from his family. But how much did they know about his life away from the bosom of his family?

Here is a man who came from a hard-working, decent and respectable family who were prepared to make considerable sacrifices to keep him on the straight and narrow. However, here is a man who chose to make a living from breaking into people's houses and stealing their most treasured possessions. His reasoning was that, if he robbed wealthy homes, they would be insured and therefore compensated. Did he ever think about the fact that, in all probability, he was stealing irreplaceable family pieces, precious to the inhabitants of the homes he soiled? Why didn't he even try to earn an honest living?

Then again, take his friend, Charles France's daughter, a girl who knew Hanratty as 'Uncle Jim' and yet it is believed he had casual sex with her in the back of a car.

The real picture of Hanratty being painted by these examples is one who had no conscience and no real insight into the consequences of his crimes and their effect on his victims and his family.

It is believed Hanratty had no history of violence, but how do we know there are not other crimes that never came to light?

Although there is still a little bit of me that wants to believe in Hanratty's innocence, someone was guilty of this terrible crime and Hanratty, possibly working with on on behalf of someone else, is the man with more evidence against him than anyone else.

[ansonman]

If it wasn't you then it must have been me

Hello Ansonman

I think Valerie was quite consistent with her description and that any inconsistencies were due more to communication errors than Valerie changing her mind. Given that she was grievously wounded and near to death’s door when she gave her first descriptions it is not surprising that a detailed description took some time to come together.

Most of us posting here agree that there are only two possibles for the A6 gunman; Hanratty and Alphon. OK, there is a chance that a third party was never discovered, but I for one believe this to be a chance so remote as to be safely discounted. Alphon could not have been the murderer, that leaves only Hanratty.

Kind regards,
Steve

Hi Steve,

I will reply and then shut up for a while.

In my view, rather than saying there are only two names in the frame and as Alphon could not have been the murderer that means Hanratty was, I think we should be asking where is the EVIDENCE linking Hanratty to the murder. If we discount the DNA, which we must, there is insufficient evidence to convict Hanratty. Simply saying 'because he didn't do it then the other guy must have' is not good enough. Particularly when the other guy's life was at stake.

Thank you for listening.

Ansonman

[simon]

I've just watched, for a third time, the documentary 'Hanratty - The Truth'. The scientists make a clear distinction between 'primary' and 'secondary' contamination of DNA. On the basis of this, they're convinced that Hanratty was the killer. Can't we (some of us) just admit that these people have put all this to the test, and do actually know what they're talking about ?

[ansonman]

Guilty until proved innocent

Hi Ansoman,

I sympathise with your views, I really do, but, as I've pointed out before, what do we really know about Hanratty? Most of the books written on the case have painted Hanratty as a rather wayward but basically decent young man.

This information must surely have come from his family. But how much did they know about his life away from the bosom of his family?

Here is a man who came from a hard-working, decent and respectable family who were prepared to make considerable sacrifices to keep him on the straight and narrow. However, here is a man who chose to make a living from breaking into people's houses and stealing their most treasured possessions. His reasoning was that, if he robbed wealthy homes, they would be insured and therefore compensated. Did he ever think about the fact that, in all probability, he was stealing irreplaceable family pieces, precious to the inhabitants of the homes he soiled? Why didn't he even try to earn an honest living?

Then again, take his friend, Charles France's daughter, a girl who knew Hanratty as 'Uncle Jim' and yet it is believed he had casual sex with her in the back of a car.

The real picture of Hanratty being painted by these examples is one who had no conscience and no real insight into the consequences of his crimes and their effect on his victims and his family.

It is believed Hanratty had no history of violence, but how do we know there are not other crimes that never came to light?

Although there is still a little bit of me that wants to believe in Hanratty's innocence, someone was guilty of this terrible crime and Hanratty, possibly working with on on behalf of someone else, is the man with more evidence against him than anyone else.

Hi Limehouse,

I have the lowest possible regard for thieves and people who take advantage of young children. However, being a petty thief and having sex in a car with his neice doesn't make Hanratty a callous murderer and a madman. I think it is generally agreed that the murderer must have been a madman. Someone so demented that he would hold a couple up at gunpoint, order one of them to drive the car around for six hours before shooting him at close range, raping the woman and then shooting and leaving her for dead.

I think it is difficult to imagine the level of derangement that this murderer possessed and his actions must surely put him amongst the top 5 most viscious and demented murderers in British criminal history. If Hanratty had the characteristics that the murderer had to possess then people would have known.

The police must have done everything in their power to trace friends, relatives, neighbours, aquaintances of Hanratty who could attest to his madness. To my knowledge they found no one who had ever witnessed in Hanratty the madness that the murderer had to possess.

The fact that really we know very little about Hanratty does not mean he was a murderer.

Regards,

Ansonman

[Steve]

The scientists make a clear distinction between 'primary' and 'secondary' contamination of DNA. On the basis of this, they're convinced that Hanratty was the killer. Can't we (some of us) just admit that these people have put all this to the test, and do actually know what they're talking about ?

Hi Simon

I’ll go along with that.

Sorry, Ansonman, I just don’t believe that we can discount the DNA evidence. We can place less than total reliance on it, but not totally discount it. At least not at the moment, but who knows what scientific developments are in the future.

Kind regards,
Steve

[Steve]

Here is a man who came from a hard-working, decent and respectable family who were prepared to make considerable sacrifices to keep him on the straight and narrow. However, here is a man who chose to make a living from breaking into people's houses and stealing their most treasured possessions. His reasoning was that, if he robbed wealthy homes, they would be insured and therefore compensated. Did he ever think about the fact that, in all probability, he was stealing irreplaceable family pieces, precious to the inhabitants of the homes he soiled? Why didn't he even try to earn an honest living?

Hi Limehouse

You are a paragon of common sense - Hanratty WAS a criminal, as you clearly point out, and certainly not an innocent abroad!

Kind regards,
Steve

[Limehouse]

Hi Limehouse,

I have the lowest possible regard for thieves and people who take advantage of young children. However, being a petty thief and having sex in a car with his neice doesn't make Hanratty a callous murderer and a madman. I think it is generally agreed that the murderer must have been a madman. Someone so demented that he would hold a couple up at gunpoint, order one of them to drive the car around for six hours before shooting him at close range, raping the woman and then shooting and leaving her for dead.

I think it is difficult to imagine the level of derangement that this murderer possessed and his actions must surely put him amongst the top 5 most viscious and demented murderers in British criminal history. If Hanratty had the characteristics that the murderer had to possess then people would have known.

The police must have done everything in their power to trace friends, relatives, neighbours, aquaintances of Hanratty who could attest to his madness. To my knowledge they found no one who had ever witnessed in Hanratty the madness that the murderer had to possess.

The fact that really we know very little about Hanratty does not mean he was a murderer.

Regards,

Ansonman

Hello again Ansonman,

Again, I take your point and can understand your reluctance to accept that Hanratty was capable of such cruelty. Believe me, I have felt the same. However, it is entirely possible to be a madman and show absolutely no evidence of it to your family, friends and employers. To most people, Peter Sutcliffe was a quiet, respectable, family man. He was a valued employer and a much loved son-in-law to his wife's parents who considered him a lovely boy. He was, however, also a vicious and callous killer and the true depavity of his crimes has never been totally revealed to spare the families of his vicitms. Many people found it impossible to believe that gentle Peter was the Yorkshire Ripper, including his own brothers and sisters.

There is quite a lot of evidence to link Hanratty to the crime, although some of it does seem to be rather contrived. Firstly, there is the hanky with his DNA, found wrapped around the gun that fired the fatal shots. Secondly are the cartridges found in the room he occupied. Thirdly, the testimony of Valerie Storie, additionally the fact that he changed his story about his whereabouts on the night of the crime and finally the DNA evidence. Some of these evidences certainly seem suspect but when you put them all together, it does point more to Hanratty than anyone else.

Certainly there are aspects to this crime that throw a small amount of doubt on Hanratty being the sole person responsible. It would be very interesting to see if anyone else steps out of the shadows within the next few years.