a6 murder

[Steve]

Hi Graham

My understanding is that only one profile was obtained from the DNA testing of the remaining exhibits. Though I have to say, I'm not certain about the male/female profile difference, but then I am probably just being unusually obtuse!

Kind regards,
Steve

[richardnunweek]

Hi Steve,
I am still convinced of Hanrattys Guilt, dispite my post , however one can not dispute that his last letter to his brother[ who he was close to] has all the hallmarks of a man not convinced of his guilt, and if that post was in-sincere, then he was one hell of a b-----d.
So it all boils down to the same old Question. 'GUILTY/NOT.
Shall we vote Ladies and Gents.
Richard.

[Steve]

Hi Richard

My vote as follows:

Hanratty: 99.9% recurring certainty of guilt
Alphon: Not there at the time the crime was committed, not capable of female rape, not guilty
Another?: Who else, the DNA really dispells anyone else being the murderer

Kind regards,
Steve

[Graham]

I too reckon that it's overwhelmingly likely that Hanratty was guilty, but I can't be one hundred per cent certain, due to the almost-incredible coincidences and convolutions that exist about this case. As I've said before, if Valerie had picked out Alphon at that i.d. parade, then maybe we'd be arguing the toss about his guilt and not Hanratty's. But however hard I try I can't place Alphon in the car that night, neither can I think of Alphon as a credible suspect. He was many unpleasant things, but not a murderer. Neither was he a habitual criminal or wrong-doer - he was just odd. Even when I thought Hanratty was innocent (as I did pre-DNA) I still couldn't accept that Alphon was the killer. He was too theatrical, too manipulative - too plain clever in many ways. He pounced on the case like a hawk, and made a good profit out of it.

Hanratty's letters are a puzzle. I've always thought that because of his various psychological deficiencies he did just simply go into denial, in the same way as I did when I was a kid and did something wrong. I believe I'm correct in saying that he confided to one of the Frances - Charlotte, I think - that he 'had done something big; something that scares', or words to that effect. I'm no psychologist, but if he was referring to what I think he was referring to, then he had some awareness of it, but as the net closed around him he forced the entire dreadful memory of that night to the back of, or completely away from, his mind. I wonder if he actually thought he could never be caught...

I read Theodore Dreiser's book "An American Tragedy" when I was a youth - this is about a young man accused of murdering his pregnant girl-friend. He's caught, but at first denies it flatly (as he would). Then, if I remember correctly, under gentle pressure from his highly-religious mother he says it was an accident, but he never actually admits that he murdered the girl in cold blood. I think the book was loosely based on the Gillette Case. Not suggesting that a work of fiction can illustrate the horrorific actuality of the death-cell, obviously, but I believe Dreiser was suggesting that the human mind does have the capacity to deny terrible things. Anyway.

Cheers,

Graham

[Steve]

Hi Steve,
one can not dispute that his last letter to his brother[ who he was close to] has all the hallmarks of a man not convinced of his guilt

Hi Richard

Do we know for sure he was close to his brother? Messages sent from the condemned cell might have emotional differences, don't you think?

KR
Steve

[Steve]

Hi Graham

We have to remember that Hanratty's final letters were not written by himself because of his learning difficulties. They were written by the prison warders.

KR
Steve

[Steve]

The Gregsten ...

... family home at the time of the murder.

[Steve]

Hanratty's ...

... final resting place.

[Graham]

Hi Graham

We have to remember that Hanratty's final letters were not written by himself because of his learning difficulties. They were written by the prison warders.

KR
Steve

Hi Steve,

Yeah, I know...and by the chaplain as well, apparently. Given that JH had difficulties not only with writing and reading, but also with articulacy and in understanding what was said to him, I wonder just how much the content of his last letters were his own input, or a genuine and earnest attempt to fight the inevitable outcome to the bitter end - which is understandable. It would be an absolute travesty if any of his letters were composed by others, and I genuinely hope that this was not the case, because it could possibly bring into doubt his actual fitness to plead at his own trial. And, to be absolutely fair to him, if he genuinely understood the procedure of his own trial. Looking at this with modern eyes, it seems almost incredible that he was actually brought to trial. But I guess that in those days the Law was somewhat less understanding than would appear to be the case these days...all part and parcel of the absolute tragedy of the A6 Case, I guess.

Had it been Alphon in the dock, you can't help but feel that he'd have run rings around the prosecution case.

Cheers,

Graham

[larue]

Hi all.

I'm not being a smart-arse here, just asking a straightforward question. Can someone please tell me where and by whom it was written that there were more than one male DNA on the knickers? Everything I ever read about the tests suggests that one and only one male DNA trace was found.

Cheers,

Graham

hi Graham

the metropolitan police forensic lab examined the knickers later the same day, or the day after, [ by L C [elsie] Nikols-if memory serves, apologies if i'm wrong aboot this ] and found two different semen stains-hence two different genetic material samples. voila! two dna samples. added to the dna of vs which must also have been present. that makes three, plus any deposits left by anyone who handled said item during the trial etc etc. the dna analysis, which was, admittedly carried out on only a small sample of knicker, found only one.

this is one of the aspects of the dna test i find very unsatisfactory

the result, one dna-hanratty's was trumpetted as a clincher that hanratty was guilty-because no other dna was found-it had to be him [some logic!!!!]

my view, looking through the other end of the telescope as it were, is, why didn't the all singing all dancing dna test reveal any other dna, because there was plenty more to find???

what was found is exactly and precicely what was looked for. and not a jot more.

[Limehouse]

Hi Graham

We have to remember that Hanratty's final letters were not written by himself because of his learning difficulties. They were written by the prison warders.

KR
Steve

Hi Steve, everyone,

I believe that although the letters were dictated by Hanratty, they were his words. If you read other letters that Hanratty wrote from prison during previous prison sentences, they have the same style. I don't believe Hanratty was not inarticulate, indeed, the fluency of the dictated letters indicate otherwise. As I have said before, I believe Hanratty suffered from a particular type of undiagnosed dyslexia, the effects of which caused him to be labelled 'mentally defective' when in fact he most certainly was not. Dyslexia is a complex disorder that causes a multitude of difficulties but people with dyslexia usually have a normal or slightly raised IQ. Certain aspects of Hanratty's behaviour (the restlessness, the wandering) indicate strongly that he was an intelligent man with no control over certain aspects of his life (the ability to express that intelligence through productive reading and writing). When he found something he was good at, he had to keep doing it - especially as it provided him with the means to project himself as an outwardly smart and well-dressed man.

In terms of whether the final letter reveals the words of an innocent man or a clever manipulator, well I believe Hanratty wanted his family to think well of him. Perhaps he had hidden the extent of his criminality from them for years and he was much more than the petty criminal they believed him to be.
Appearing to be innocent and appearing to give them something to fight for ensured they would still regard him with affection rather than disgust. If he had confessed, he would have walked to the scaffold a man despised and maybe he could not face that?

[Steve]

Morning Limehouse

Very interesting analysis of Hanratty’s personality. I remember you posting your thoughts about his mental condition on the old thread. You believed him to be a psychopath. Do you still hold to that view, and is it possible for someone to be both psychopathic and an intelligent manipulator?

Kind regards,
Steve

[Limehouse]

Morning Limehouse

Very interesting analysis of Hanratty’s personality. I remember you posting your thoughts about his mental condition on the old thread. You believed him to be a psychopath. Do you still hold to that view, and is it possible for someone to be both psychopathic and an intelligent manipulator?

Kind regards,
Steve

Hi Steve,

I am sure I actually said I thought the killer was a psychopath and then (I think it was you) someone suggested that if I accepted that Hanratty was the killer, I must therefore accept he was a psychopath. Although I am not wholly convinced he was the killer (about 80%) I must, of course, accept the possibility that Hanrattyy was also a psychopath. This does not really change my belief that he was dyslexic and that certain aspects of that undiagnosed dyslexia caused certain behaviour patterns. If we conclude that Hanratty was the killer and that he was a psycopath, he might still feel that was important for his family to see him as blameless and he would certainly have been unable to accept responsibility for his actions.

[Limehouse]

I have not attached any blame to Miss Storie in my statement, I have merely pointed out that Miss Storie and Michael Gregsten were involved in a love affair, which eventually (and unfortunately) through a chain of events led to them being in a cornfield at Dorney Reach on August 22nd 1961 where they were hi-jacked by a gunman. You have read much more into this statement than was intended.

Hi Jimarilyn,

Your original statement concerning Miss Storie's realtionship with Gregten came at the end of a passage explaining why you felt aspects of Miss Storie's description of events might be unreliable. You then closed with the quote that seemed to question Miss Storie's morals, therefore calling her description of events into question.

I just felt that it was unfair to focus on Miss Storie's role in the relationship as if it had any bearing on her reliability as a witness. If this is not your intention I apologise. I have no wish to stir up unpleasantness.

[jimarilyn]

Your original statement concerning Miss Storie's realtionship with Gregten came at the end of a passage explaining why you felt aspects of Miss Storie's description of events might be unreliable. You then closed with the quote that seemed to question Miss Storie's morals, therefore calling her description of events into question.

I just felt that it was unfair to focus on Miss Storie's role in the relationship as if it had any bearing on her reliability as a witness. If this is not your intention I apologise. I have no wish to stir up unpleasantness.

Hi Limehouse,

What I was trying to convey was that we are all at a big disadvantage at having only one version of that fateful night's events to work on. I've never met Miss Storie and I don't know how trustworthy or otherwise she is (and that goes for everyone I haven't met or don't know). I do know that there were several discrepancies between her very early descriptions of the killer and later descriptions of him. I do know that she wrongly identified an innocent airman, Michael Clark, as her assailant on the first identification parade she attended.

My last statement in that particular posting (1224) was made because I believe that Michael Gregsten's extra marital affair with Miss Storie was instrumental and pivotal to a hired gunman being sent to Dorney Reach to put an end to their relationship. Not for one second do I believe that this was a chance encounter between a couple and a gunman wandering aimlessly about the very quiet countryside of Dorney. The gunman had been given his agenda, he knew where Michael and Valerie would be, they'd been there several times over the previous months.