Originally posted by RonIpstone
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
a6 murder
Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
-
Originally posted by JamesDean View PostHello to all. I have been away from the forum for some time now and it will take me a while to catch up with this most fascinating thread. Glad to see that familiar posters are still here and some new ones have joined the throng. I am looking forward to locking intellectual horns again with those who claim to know that Jim did it. That doesn't automatically mean I think Alphon did it or that Jim didn't do it. I am merely seeking truth. I think that's what most of us are doing.
Is this now an open and shut case as some would have us believe? If that were true then surely we would all have lost interest ages ago and would confine our thoughts and arguments to more recent mysteries. Despite what some would call overwhelming DNA evidence, there still lingers doubt for some of us. Perhaps in time all will be revealed. Will it be in the form of a further breakthrough in medical science that will change one way or the other our perception of the forensics or will it be some revelation when hitherto unavailable documentation eventually makes its way into the public domain?
Julie (Limehouse), I truly hope that you will reconsider leaving the forum and perhaps in time you will return to add your voice to the arguments being expounded on this most amazing forum.
babybird67, I managed to get through your mammoth post although I have to say I skimmed some parts to enable me to get to the end but I think I got the gist of what you are saying. Irrespective of whether I agree or disagree with what you had to say, I must congratulate you for your ability to express yourself. You seem to be here as a staunch supporter of Valerie and believe me I have the utmost sympathy for the ordeal that she was put through by the perpetrator of the horrendous crime that took place on Deadman's Hill. However, I think it is not disrespectful to her to suggest that maybe she was an unreliable witness or that she could be mistaken in her identification of her assailant. I do believe that she is convinced that she picked out the right man at the second identification parade but that doesn't convince me that she is infallible because infallibility is not a human trait. What I am really getting at is for you to not assume that anyone, who dares to suggest that Valerie may have made a mistake in her assertion that Hanratty was the assailant, is attacking Valerie. That's not the case and I believe that we all make mistakes even when we are sure of our facts. Valerie is not on trial and I don't think that women's rights are at stake here. Please don't take any theorising about the circumstances involving Valerie's identification and subsequent testimony as personal attacks upon her. It's impossible to take a rational view of this case without examining all aspects from all angles. It's inevitable that sometimes someone will be offended by the raking over of the ashes of this case. Perhaps we are all guilty sometimes of writing something which is clumsy or thoughtless and I am no exception. I doubt that anyone truly writes specifically to belittle or offend another poster. It happens more through frustration than through genuine malice!
I wonder what is hidden in those archives that we are not allowed to have access to for many years to come? Why the need for such secrecy?
Regards,
James
Hi JamesDean,
Excellently put. May I say that it's great to see you back on these boards. Your grasp and understanding of the DNA aspect to the case, like Reg1965's and Dupplin Muir's, is most impressive as witnessed by all those illuminating posts of yours.
Hope you stick around.
regards,
James
Comment
-
Hi James and James,
I'm happy to accept James Dean's comment that Reg was frustrated and inconsiderate, although I wouldn't accept that he was without malice as he basically accused Valerie of conspiring to murder Hanratty, without any evidence whatsoever.
In any case, Ron's point 6 quoted below effectively summarises the DNA situation.
Originally posted by RonIpstone View Post6. But showing that there was a chance of contamination is not enough. The difficulty is that if Hanratty’s DNA had contaminated the exhibit, the DNA profile of the rapist/murder would still be present on the knickers. In this case not only has Hanratty, possibly posthumously, contaminated the knickers, or fragments thereof, he has removed the DNA of the real rapist/murderer and substituted his own.
Vic.Truth is female, since truth is beauty rather than handsomeness; this [...] would certainly explain the saying that a lie could run around the world before Truth has got its, correction, her boots on, since she would have to chose which pair - the idea that any woman in a position to choose would have just one pair of boots being beyond rational belief.
Unseen Academicals - Terry Pratchett.
Comment
-
Originally posted by jimornot? View Post
but on the Louise Anderson link she talks of Hanratty's rather high pitched voice which I would think would be pretty memorable.
viv
Interestingly, none of the Rhyl alibi witnesses appear to have commented on this characteristic.
I’m sure we all have our own opinions on how Alphon’s (God bless him) voice is best described.
Peter
Comment
-
Originally posted by Victor View Post
How would that blackmail work? Give me money or I'll tell everyone what happened and put a noose around my own neck? Alphon has nothing to bargain with, without implicating himself. It just wouldn't work.
He was rather successful in dragging out his fifteen minutes of fame.
Peter.
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by SteveS View PostHi Ron
I don't know whether you have read my post #4427 before.
I therefore will not repeat myself unnecessarily as that post covers any of the points you have made.
Thnx
Steve
Mr Mansfield QC brought evidence that contamination was quite likely, but none that showed how the contaminating evidence could at one and the same time not only contaminate the exhibit but also remove the DNA of the rapist.
If Prof Jamieson wants to tell us how this could happen then I am all ears.
Comment
-
Whilst I cannot claim to understand DNA testing, I acknowledge that there could have been contamination, given the way the items were stored.
However, the fact remains that there were apparently only three DNA samples present on the knicker sample. These were identified as VS, MG and JH.
As many posters have said if JH is innocent "where is the rapist's DNA".
Having said this I just feel that JH was innocent, or perhaps I just want him to be innocent.
So many on this thread are knowledgeable and know so much about the case and are convinced of JH's guilt. Despite reading lots of books, articles and of course this thread, I'm still kind of sitting on the fence.
Come on DM - where's this post you promised last week?
Comment
-
hi Jimornot?
Originally posted by jimornot? View PostHi Larue
last time I was up there the New Road cricket Ground was completely under water (a couple of summers ago).
Viv
the swans loved it though
Originally posted by jimornot? View Postonly half a bottle - he did get very cold????
Viv
[btw, don't nobody tell him it's st andrews day, or he'll neck it today to celebrate]atb
larue
Comment
-
Documentary
I recall watching what I believe was the last comprehensive TV documentary on the Hanratty case. The scientist involved in the DNA testing stated that primary contamination was very different to secondary contamination (such as might occur if items were stored together) and that in this case the samples tested were all the result of primary contamination, thus reducing the chance of accidental contamination virtually to zero.SPE
Treat me gently I'm a newbie.
Comment
-
hi burkhilly
Originally posted by burkhilly View PostAs many posters have said if JH is innocent "where is the rapist's DNA".
Originally posted by burkhilly View PostHaving said this I just feel that JH was innocent, or perhaps I just want him to be innocent.
when i first read aboot the proposed dna test, i was living in the USA, and i found an article on , i think, a bbc news page, i can remember thinking something like 'now we'll see what the butler saw', and was quite suprised when i realized the page i was reading was already a couple of years old, and that in fact the dna test had already been completed and appeared to support the guilty verdict. 'so he really did do it' was my first reaction. i was really suprised at this, given the support of and the duration of the innocence campaign. so the notion of a botched dna test, was quite easy to believe in, as the result seemed to fly in the face of the other 'evidence' against him. i still think this.
Originally posted by burkhilly View PostI'm still kind of sitting on the fence.atb
larue
Comment
-
Originally posted by Stewart P Evans View PostI recall watching what I believe was the last comprehensive TV documentary on the Hanratty case. The scientist involved in the DNA testing stated that primary contamination was very different to secondary contamination (such as might occur if items were stored together) and that in this case the samples tested were all the result of primary contamination, thus reducing the chance of accidental contamination virtually to zero.
which documentary was this? was it recent?
i understand 'secondary contamination (such as might occur if items were stored together)' which is what Michael Hanratty says happened, so what would constitute 'primary contamination'? and why would it reduce the chance of accidental contamination virtually to zero?atb
larue
Comment
-
Don't Ask Me...
Originally posted by larue View Posthi Stewart
which documentary was this? was it recent?
i understand 'secondary contamination (such as might occur if items were stored together)' which is what Michael Hanratty says happened, so what would constitute 'primary contamination'? and why would it reduce the chance of accidental contamination virtually to zero?SPE
Treat me gently I'm a newbie.
Comment
Comment