a6 murder

[Victor]

Hi Derrick,

Mrs Dinwoodie identified James Hanratty visually in court in 1962 as being the man who came into the shop.

Come on - there was only one person sat in the dock when she was essentially asked "Is that him?" - it's the worst basis for confirming an identification possible - worse even than being shown one photograph and being asked if you have seen this person!

KR,
Vic.

[Victor]

So what was likely to be have been important that it would have been stored in the broken vial that was found?

Hi Derrick,

Well from the judgment...
"A suggestion, which has not been contradicted, is that the seminal stain may have been washed out and retained in the form of a liquid."
"Mr Roger Mann, who has thirty-two years experience as a forensic scientist, gave evidence that he has never come across a vial or tube containing liquid being retained on a file"

It's way more likely that the little vial contained hairs (for example) rather than a liquid, and as there were some of Alphon's hairs in the file, maybe there were some of Hanratty's too - in the vial.

KR,
Vic.

[Victor]

Hi Derrick,

A bit harsh mate. Hanratty was on trial for his life. How would you feel having pleaded not guilty.

I was just pointing out that Hanratty wasn't the whimpering underdog that Norma was making him out to be, but he was a veteran of the courtroom. And as you pointed out...

I don't know about calm but from the transcripts I have read Hanratty gave as good as he got in his joust with Graham Swanwick.

...so he wasn't as disadvantaged as all that, and he had Sherrard there for support.

To be fair, I am not sure that court transcripts would record anything but what was actually said unless asked to do so by the judge. So it would appear that the dropping of the book wouldn't have been seen by either Foot or Woffinden because they were not there, unlike Michael Hanrattty who was. I have no reason to doubt his word. Do you?

Erm... The agrieved brother of the hanged man, yes I doubt it was as dramatic as Michael Hanratty suggests - and I believe that Foot and Woffinden think so too, otherwise they would use a reliable source for the exchange, rather than phrasing it in that cumbersome but deliberate way.

KR,
Vic.

[babybird67]

Hi Babybird

There is no need pet as Mrs Dinwoodie identified James Hanratty visually in court in 1962 as being the man who came into the shop.

Derrick

Do you have a reference, pet? Thanks awfully.

Maybe her eyesight was as defective as her hearing.

[Derrick]

..its in "The Mystery of Deadman"s Hill"-Colin Wilson contributed to the article...

HI all
I may be a bit thick but who is Colin Wilson? And what article is this?

Derrick

[babybird67]

Hi Babybird

Hanratty didn't get caught long enough to keep Louise Anderson in business with cheaply fenced goods.

He properly stole a Jag to head north when wanted for the A6 murder. Who knows how many other cars Hanratty pinched to order?

He also didn't get caught for the Stanmore robbery which proved that Hanratty had stolen a jacket, although the plod were thick enough to not record this offence properly.

His last letters to his family convince me of a man trying bravely to come to terms with a fate that a petty thief in the 20th century didn't deserve.

Derrick

And yet he wasnt out of prison long enough to properly learn to drive was he?

There is nothing brave about a rapist and murderer. Save your plaudits for the victims of his crime. It would reflect better on you.

[Derrick]

By all means do so then. I look foward to reading your next posting with your references and figures relating to how conversant the Liverpudlians of the 1960s were with Scots, Welsh and London accents.

Hi Babybird

There is no need pet as Mrs Dinwoodie identified James Hanratty visually in court in 1962 as being the man who came into the shop.

Derrick

[Derrick]

1. A wash was done of the fly aea of Hanratty's trousers, but it is unlikely to have been stored in a flask or tube like that.

Hi Victor

So what was likely to be have been important that it would have been stored in the broken vial that was found?

Derrick

[Derrick]

Because he was thick. He couldn't steal cars properly, he couldnt steal anything properly he was always getting caught. He thought people would fall for the, 'I might be a criminal but i'm no killer trick' and he was right, some people have!

Hi Babybird

Hanratty didn't get caught long enough to keep Louise Anderson in business with cheaply fenced goods.

He properly stole a Jag to head north when wanted for the A6 murder. Who knows how many other cars Hanratty pinched to order?

He also didn't get caught for the Stanmore robbery which proved that Hanratty had stolen a jacket, although the plod were thick enough to not record this offence properly.

His last letters to his family convince me of a man trying bravely to come to terms with a fate that a petty thief in the 20th century didn't deserve.

Derrick

[Derrick]

Hi Victor

That's pure speculation.

A bit harsh mate. Hanratty was on trial for his life. How would you feel having pleaded not guilty.

Really? Hanratty was well used to the inside of a courtroom having been tried multiple times, admittedly not as accustomed as Swanwick. Foot and Woffinden both point out how calm he seemed to be giving evidence.

I don't know about calm but from the transcripts I have read Hanratty gave as good as he got in his joust with Graham Swanwick.

I've pointed out before that neither Foot nor Woffinden say Swanwick did drop the books and destroy Grace Jones evidence - they both say "Michael Hanratty always remembers..." which is blatantly destorting the truth.

To be fair, I am not sure that court transcripts would record anything but what was actually said unless asked to do so by the judge. So it would appear that the dropping of the book wouldn't have been seen by either Foot or Woffinden because they were not there, unlike Michael Hanrattty who was. I have no reason to doubt his word. Do you?

Derrick

[Victor]

Hanratty was under huge stress trying to cope with Mr Swanwick ,an eminent lawyer, born into privilege and wealth with all the advantages in law that that brings.

Hi Norma,

That's pure speculation.

Swanwick ,in contrast to Hanratty was thoroughly at ease in the court room,linguistically and socially,an Oxbridge graduate and an experienced prosecutor.He knew exactly what would take Hanratty by surprise who was struggling throughout against the trial"s fatal outcome.

Really? Hanratty was well used to the inside of a courtroom having been tried multiple times, admittedly not as accustomed as Swanwick. Foot and Woffinden both point out how calm he seemed to be giving evidence.

Swanwick used the very same attack with Mrs Jones over her guest books, and all but destroyed her testimony.

I've pointed out before that neither Foot nor Woffinden say Swanwick did drop the books and destroy Grace Jones evidence - they both say "Michael Hanratty always remembers..." which is blatantly destorting the truth.

KR,
Vic.

[Victor]

a]what else was a glass vial with a rubber stopper , of the kind kept in a chemistry lab ,likely to contain in that particular drawer,since we know that a "wash" was done on Hanratty"s trousers by the police pathologist and since other item"s taken from Hanratty such as his trousers were also in the drawer and several "forensic" materials that had been kept viz hair samples etc all such fibres known to have been taken from Hanratty"s person when he was in custody?

Hi Norma,

1. A wash was done of the fly aea of Hanratty's trousers, but it is unlikely to have been stored in a flask or tube like that.
2. Hanratty's trousers were not in that drawer.
3. The hair samples were from Alphon.

b]You are mistaken here.The brown paper envelope the fragment of knicker was kept in had been sealed in the normal way and was found to have come apart at the edges "at some time" and then resealed itself----as paper and glue do when brought into contact with water.

Nope, you're the one who is mistaken. Mr Greenhalgh, the scientist who examined them said...“As I examined the item, the piece of blue material from the knickers was in a sealed packet inside the two envelopes. I did not observe any damage to that packaging which I considered likely to be a risk of contamination. As far as I was concerned they were sealed, although the outer envelopes were not sealed there was no indication of any liquid damage on the brown paper envelopes, as might have been expected if a liquid sample had leaked onto them.”

KR,
Vic.

[babybird67]

How do you know? Perhaps you would like to tell that to some of the people still there who know he was definitely there because they saw him there---together with those who have sons and daughters still aggrieved about hearing their dead parents called liars-and believe me they are quite angry about it and I don"t think they would be too chuffed to hear you telling them their mothers or fathers didnt see someone they were or are quite certain they did see! You might get biffed like a certain Mr P did in Rhyl a few years back!

One: nobody is saying they were liars, Norma. There is a difference between being mistaken and being a liar.

Two: You use the phrase that these witnesses were 'quite certain'. I dont have the books i will try to order them from somewhere, but from recollection from when I borrowed Graham's, none of them were certain, bar Mrs Jones, that the man they saw was Hanratty. They all used vague language such as, could have been, might have been, looked like him.

Three: If you uphold the Rhyl witnesses, you are calling Valerie Storie a liar aren't you? Unless you are accepting that witnesses can be mistaken. However we have on the one hand the Rhyl witnesses, only one of whom could say with any certainty the man she had seen WAS Hanratty...and evidence shows she was mistaken. And on the other hand we have the victim of the crime, who spent hours in the rapist's company, who was able to pick him out by looks/voice from a line up and whose evidence stood up in court, and has now been vindicated by the DNA evidence which supports her identification completely.

It really is a no-brainer.

[Natalie Severn]

Yeah, yeah...etc.

Graham

I didn"t know you were the Town Crier !

[Graham]

How do you know? Perhaps you would like to tell that to some of the people still there who know he was definitely there because they saw him there---together with those who have sons and daughters still aggrieved about hearing their dead parents called liars-and believe me they are quite angry about it and I don"t think they would be too chuffed to hear you telling them their mothers or fathers didnt see someone they were or are quite certain they did see! You might get biffed like a certain Mr P did in Rhyl a few years back!

Yeah, yeah...etc.

Graham