a6 murder

[babybird67]

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?

And what of those from Alphon? Prove any of Hanratty's DNA was in anything in that vial and you might, might, have a point.

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.

No you are mistaken. The experts said there was no evidence of any of whatever was in the tube coming into contact with the envelope or any of the surrounding materials. It would be physically impossible for anything in the vial, whatever it was, to have contaminated the fabric without coming into contact with the materials the fabric was contained in.

But hey you lot are the experts with trying to explain the impossible.

[babybird67]

then why did he admit that he had told Charles France that' under the back seat of a bus was a good place to hide unwanted loot from a burglary'? Why - when challenged - didn't he just say 'I never said any such thing'. And why - when shown his hanky in court - didn't he just deny it was his? Surely denying these things would have given the prosecution a much harder time? They would have had a much harder time connecting Hanratty with the crime without that evidence - and yet Hanratty told the truth. Why?

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!

[Natalie Severn]

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.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. Swanwick used the very same attack with Mrs Jones over her guest books, and all but destroyed her testimony.
The hanky business was exactly that;Swanwick engaged in a bit of dirty hanky panky to throw Hanratty off his stroke.

[NickB]

Surely the surprise would come from the realisation that someone had got hold of his hanky and wrapped it round the murder weapon because they knew full well that the hanky was one of Hanratty's signatures.

I'm just saying that his surprise shows that this was not something he had been prepared for.

[Limehouse]

Swanwick: “Mr Hanratty did you have a conversation with Mr France about the back seat of a bus?”

Hanratty: “Yes Sir but only as a place to hide rubbish jewellery not to hide a gun.”

Surely it was better for Hanratty to accept that he had said it but was talking about hiding jewellery. All Swanwick could do then was move on. Denying something that France had no reason to lie about would look far more incriminating and lead to some awkward supplementary questions.

Swanwick: “Mr Hanratty the gun was found wrapped in a handkerchief. Did you know that?”

Hanratty: “No, Sir.”

Swanwick: “Clerk of the court will you show Mr Hanratty exhibit no xx please.”

Swanwick: “Now Mr Hanratty tell My Lord and the jury, is that your handkerchief?”

Hanratty: “Well yes Sir it is indeed.”

The handkerchief appeared to take him by surprise. The thought going through his mind must have been: “Can they prove this is mine?”. If Sherrard had told him beforehand: “If they show you the handkerchief, bear in mind that there is no way they can prove it is yours” – I wonder what his answer would have been.

Fair enough Nick - but France may well have had reason to incriminate Hanratty in the first place by recalling and reporting this conversation. And why should the hanky take Hanratty by surprise if he knew full wqell he had wrapped the gun it it? Surely the surprise would come from the realisation that someone had got hold of his hanky and wrapped it round the murder weapon because they knew full well that the hanky was one of Hanratty's signatures.

[NickB]

then why did he admit that he had told Charles France that' under the back seat of a bus was a good place to hide unwanted loot from a burglary'? Why - when challenged - didn't he just say 'I never said any such thing'. And why - when shown his hanky in court - didn't he just deny it was his? Surely denying these things would have given the prosecution a much harder time? They would have had a much harder time connecting Hanratty with the crime without that evidence - and yet Hanratty told the truth. Why?

Swanwick: “Mr Hanratty did you have a conversation with Mr France about the back seat of a bus?”

Hanratty: “Yes Sir but only as a place to hide rubbish jewellery not to hide a gun.”

Surely it was better for Hanratty to accept that he had said it but was talking about hiding jewellery. All Swanwick could do then was move on. Denying something that France had no reason to lie about would look far more incriminating and lead to some awkward supplementary questions.

Swanwick: “Mr Hanratty the gun was found wrapped in a handkerchief. Did you know that?”

Hanratty: “No, Sir.”

Swanwick: “Clerk of the court will you show Mr Hanratty exhibit no xx please.”

Swanwick: “Now Mr Hanratty tell My Lord and the jury, is that your handkerchief?”

Hanratty: “Well yes Sir it is indeed.”

The handkerchief appeared to take him by surprise. The thought going through his mind must have been: “Can they prove this is mine?”. If Sherrard had told him beforehand: “If they show you the handkerchief, bear in mind that there is no way they can prove it is yours” – I wonder what his answer would have been.

[Limehouse]

Hi Julie
Yes. Bob Woffinden and Geoffrey Bindman were instrumental in rediscoverying them in the early 1990's.

Derrick

Thanks Derrick.

[Derrick]

Did Hanratty's family even know the conditions under which the items were stored and how much handling they had been subject to before storage?

Hi Julie
Yes. Bob Woffinden and Geoffrey Bindman were instrumental in rediscoverying them in the early 1990's.

Derrick

[Natalie Severn]

Hi Graham

There were 2 main reasons why Hanratty's defence in 2002 were unable to counter the DNA evidence.

1. All of the experts conversant with LCN DNA worked for the FSS and therefore the prosecution.
2. Very little was known about the problems associated with LCN in 2002. It has only been in the last 5 years that the problems have been widely publicized.

Derrick

Thanks Derrick---at last somebody getting to the crux of the syndrome of partiality that has dogged this case!The prosecution has acted as judge and jury without even a semblance of neutrality throughout every single appeal.Who says the law is neutral ?

[Natalie Severn]

Kindly provide evidence that the broken vial:

a/ contained a wash of anyone's semen, let alone Hanratty's;

and

b/ that any liquid whatsoever was able to break the laws of physics and contaminated fabric that was held within other materials that showed no sign or evidence of being touched by water whatsoever.

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?

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.

[Limehouse]

If Hanratty lied about Liverpool and Rhyl....

then why did he admit that he had told Charles France that' under the back seat of a bus was a good place to hide unwanted loot from a burglary'? Why - when challenged - didn't he just say 'I never said any such thing'. And why - when shown his hanky in court - didn't he just deny it was his? Surely denying these things would have given the prosecution a much harder time? They would have had a much harder time connecting Hanratty with the crime without that evidence - and yet Hanratty told the truth. Why?

[Limehouse]

Hi Graham
In the early 1990's it was the Home Office, under advisement from forensic scientists who said that the exhibits couldn't be tested under the current DNA techniques of SLP (single locus probe) or RFLP (restricted fragment length polymorphism) because of the degraded state of the available material.
It wasn't until STR testing became standardized in 1994 that smaller amounts of DNA could be tested using PCR ampflication. When the NDNAD came online then the Hanratty tests were done.
The only differences between the 1995 and 1998 tests were the 4 additional loci examined (10 instead of 6) and the 6 additional PCR cycles (34 instead of 28).
There were 2 main reasons why Hanratty's defence in 2002 were unable to counter the DNA evidence.

1. All of the experts conversant with LCN DNA worked for the FSS and therefore the prosecution.
2. Very little was known about the problems associated with LCN in 2002. It has only been in the last 5 years that the problems have been widely publicized.

Derrick

Did Hanratty's family even know the conditions under which the items were stored and how much handling they had been subject to before storage?

[Derrick]

...The other point to make is that when the Hanratty family and his lawyers were pressing for a DNA test, I don't recall any of them complaining about the storage conditions and possible contamination until after the initial results were published. When the second set of results were published, obviously the **** hit the fan...

Hi Graham
In the early 1990's it was the Home Office, under advisement from forensic scientists who said that the exhibits couldn't be tested under the current DNA techniques of SLP (single locus probe) or RFLP (restricted fragment length polymorphism) because of the degraded state of the available material.
It wasn't until STR testing became standardized in 1994 that smaller amounts of DNA could be tested using PCR ampflication. When the NDNAD came online then the Hanratty tests were done.
The only differences between the 1995 and 1998 tests were the 4 additional loci examined (10 instead of 6) and the 6 additional PCR cycles (34 instead of 28).
There were 2 main reasons why Hanratty's defence in 2002 were unable to counter the DNA evidence.

1. All of the experts conversant with LCN DNA worked for the FSS and therefore the prosecution.
2. Very little was known about the problems associated with LCN in 2002. It has only been in the last 5 years that the problems have been widely publicized.

Derrick

[Limehouse]

[QUOTE=babybird67;162161]Right. So now someone who works in Liverpool and can't distinguish between Scots and Welsh must be 'clearly unused to hearing different accents.' How do you know what accents she was unused to and which ones she was used to? Rubbish as usual.

A big IF which as usual your case relies on, as once again WE DONT KNOW.

You seem to be missing the point. I am asking how it is possible to argue consistently that a man with a cockney accent (as some of you claim) or a 'broad London accent' as you seem to prefer to call it, could be so cockney or broadly London one moment as to prejudice him if he speaks, and yet so not distinguishably a Londoner the next minute that he can be mistaken for someone coming from Wales or Scotland. I live in Wales and believe me there is no possible way the Welsh was of speaking and the London way of speaking could ever be confused. The same goes for Scots. And don't say, because Mrs Dinwoodie must have been bad at accents. That is lame and without evidence.


I am not missing the point at all. You are missing the point. In Bedfordshire and places closer to London - especially at that time - people were more accustomed to hearing London accents than people living further north - who encountered London accents less often. Therefore - it is perfectly possible for a person in Liverpool not to instantly recognise a broad London accent.

It is clear that Valerie could identify a broad London accent because she described the attacker as 'having a Cockney accent'. That is why she asked the membvers of the line-up (after deliberating for 20 minutes) to speaK. Now - it is strongly argued (and I think it is mentioned in one of the books - I'll check later) that Hanratty's accent stood out because he was the only London-based man in the line-up.

As for your 'rubbish as usual' comment - it is perfectly clear that someone based in Liverpool would hear Welsh particularly - and Scottish accents possibly - more often than they would hear London accents. If the lady in question could not distinguish between Welsh and Scottish - it is reasonably safe to assume she does not have a good ear for accents. That is a perfectly logical conclusion.

[babybird67]

I really can't see why this case has been mentioned at all on this thread. How do YOU KNOW people will be arguing for the murderer's innocence? Are you suggesting that just because we have doubts about the Hanratty case - we will automatically apply the same reasoning to all murder cases?

It wouldn't surprise me.

Also - do you think all DNA evidence is the same? As Norma has pointed out - the DNA evidence in the Hanratty case was extracted decades after the murder and was analysed usingg LCN techniques. Not all DNA evidence is analysed using this technique.

So what? It was conclusive. There is no possible way that contamination caused the results that were found. You would have to be arguing for a case of contamination coupled with eradication, a physical impossibility. There will never be such a clear cut case of DNA evidence being correct. THAT is why it disturbs me when it is questioned and undermined, and why it worries me that the same sort of ridiculous arguments could be used to undermine justice.